Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aegialeus


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was discussion closed. Neither the nominator nor anyone else now wants an administrator to hit the delete button for this page, and the continuing content discussion is on the article's talk page. Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Aegialeus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is really a WP:TWODABS situation. This page, tagged as a disambiguation page, contains three lines (each of which presently violate the requirement that disambiguation pages have one blue link per line), but only two of the entries are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Disambiguation pages are not meant to host non-notable terms. Unfortunately, efforts to classify this page as other than a disambiguation page, or to conform it to the manual of style for disambiguation pages, have been met with reversion. This page should be deleted and Aegialeus (king of Sicyon), which is a far more prevalent result in Google Books searches, should be deemed the primary topic and moved to this title. bd2412 T 16:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn based on the addition of materials to the page eliminating the WP:TWODABS concern. bd2412  T 13:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - this is a purely vindictive nomination; the material is clearly encyclopedic, is parallelled by disambig pages in GERMAN, FRENCH, SPANISH, GREEK, BULGARIAN and SLOVAK, and it will disappear into the memory hole if deleted since it is information found nowhere else on english wikipedia. The obvious need for a disambig arises from the fact that there are multiple characters named "Aegialeus" (not just the king of Sicyon) needing disambiguation. The nominator has made numerous factual errors in his campaign to "mess" with this page, and each time I have corrected him, he comes up with a brand new (but equally unfactual) angle for messing with the page, which suggests that he has a bee in his bonnet because the "given reasons" keep shifting each time the are proven incorrect. Factual Error Example No. 1) Nom stated in edit summary that there were no disambiguated links on the page, therefore this is not a disambig page. When corrected that there are indeed disambiguated links on the page, though, he did not give up, he looked for a new pretext. Factual Error Example No. 2) Nom stated in edit summary that rigid adherence to MOSDAB is "mandated by policy". You'd think he'd know better, but I refer him to the famous words of Emerson which are most apt in this instance: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is strange that you would refer to a "foolish consistency" while rejecting the proposition to classify this as a set index. If the material is encyclopedic as you say, then it should have an article, or exist in another article to which a link can direct the reader. Please understand that the purpose of disambiguation pages is to provide a brief and simple correction to readers who type a term or click a link looking for one meaning, without realizing that there are multiple meanings available. Disambiguation pages are not meant to be mini-articles, or to disambiguate material not notable enough to be covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. bd2412  T 16:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I keep trying to tell you, but you won't listen, that it is fine the way it is. It ain't broke, please stop trying to "fix" it because you are doing more harm than good.  Robots have linked this disambig page to disambig pages in all the other languages, and they automatically will delink those useful pages in other languages if this ceases to be a disambig, because they are programmed not to link disambigs with non disambigs.  This isn't a full article, it is a disambig, and once again, you are standing on petty rules and regulations over common sense.  That may be the 'letter' but I don't think that's the 'spirit' of the law - or in this case, just a guideline. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You would set a precedent allowing any owner of a two-bit website or promoter of an unknown garage band to add their entity's name to Wikipedia's disambiguation page matching the name of their entity, on the grounds that it can't be covered anywhere else in the encyclopedia. Do you concede that the third name is not notable enough to be covered anywhere else, in any actual article? bd2412  T 17:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you seriously have to ask me that, I guess I haven't been clear enough for you, so unfortunately I will have to repeat myself one more time: There is nothing "wrong" with this article that needs your "fixing". All of the information contained in the article is encyclopedic and notable, and definitely belongs somewhere.  Your hypothetical red herring / strawman accusing me of trying to shoe horn a "garage band" in, when that is not and never has been my actual position, is so devoid of logic, it doesn't warrant any response. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me propose this, then: move the material on the third Aegialeus to Aeëtes. Isn't that the most intuitive place for what little material there is on a character whose claim to notability would derive from being the son of Aeëtes? bd2412  T 17:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As a follow up to that last proposal, The Aeëtes article names Absyrtus as the son who was killed by Medea (Aegialeus is just an alternative name used by a handful of writers). Aegialeus was properly mentioned as an alternative name in Absyrtus until it was removed in this apparent act of IP vandalism. I have restored the name there, in a slightly more readable sentence structure. Since the characters are one and the same, that seems to be the best target to point readers to, if they are searching for information on this Aegialeus. Cheers! bd2412  T 17:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. In the first place, there's another Aegialeus who comes up a lot, the one in the Ephesian Tale. That makes four, as I don't see any reason to discount the son of Aeëtes. In the second place, you're both wrong. It's not a dab page or a set index; it's a given name page. This conveniently fixes the problem of references and multiple links (both tabu on dab pages). The bolding, however, has to go. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am amenable to that solution. The problem, in my view, lies in the insistence of using a "disambiguation" tag on a page including material for which there is no Wikipedia article, which sets a very bad precedent. If this was merely a list of names, the lower threshold of notability for inclusion in lists would apply. bd2412  T 17:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, based on most recent edits to include four legitimate entries. However, the status as a disambiguation page is unclear. If this is a disambiguation page, the references clearly do not belong on the dab page. If it is some other type of page, the references may be OK. But since each of the current four entries mention the target (though with variant spellings), IMO the references are unneeded here and this could be a dab page. older ≠ wiser 12:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - moving the refs off of this disambig and to the proper page was the correct and best solution all along, as we all seem to have just now realized; unfortunately everything else has been tried first, including this deletion nomination. Those refs are just a vestige of when this used to be the only Aegialeus page explaining all of them together as a non-disambig, but they don't need to stay on the disambig. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We are in agreement on that point. I withdraw my nomination for deletion based on the existence of other articles covering materials using this name, thereby eliminating the WP:TWODABS concern. However, if this is a disambiguation page guiding people to different meanings of Aegialeus, why retain links to Inachus, Adrastus, Argos, or the names of the scholars who reference Aegialeus instead of Absyrtus? Someone who is looking for Aegialeus will not be helped by links to topics other than different uses of Aegialeus. bd2412  T 13:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have drafted proposed language on the article's talk page. Cheers! bd2412  T 13:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.