Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another World Is Possible


 * 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   keep. Helpful changes completely re-created meaning of the article. Further deletion discussion should be reflective of current article content and would require additional AfD. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Another World Is Possible

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a disambiguation that does not disambiguate any existing, similar sounding Wikipedia pages. Until I removed them with this edit, the closest to actual items it disambiguated were inline external links. It did formerly link to a similar sounding WP page (Do You Believe? Another World Is Possible), but that page was deleted last year per this AfD. I proded the article, but the prod was removed without explanation. Novaseminary (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow delete per WP:D. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a "snow delete" when only two or three editors have commented. See WP:SNOW. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW doesn't mention anything about the number of editors that need to comment. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not, but when you posted, you were the first editor to post a recommendation in this discussion. At that point, there was no "foregone conclusion" as mentioned in WP:SNOW. In addition WP:SNOW is actually discouraged for early closes, and since there is not unanimity in recommendations, the Snowball Clause cannot apply here. B.Wind (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to World Social Forum, as there is article that can be associated with the title. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  12:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean retarget to World Social Forum, or are you advocating the deletion of the redirect's history as well as a retargeting? 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Armburst. We have a viable redirect target, so that seems to be the best option. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure somebody would more likely be looking for the World Social Forum if they searched for this phrase than looking for any of the several works that actually use this title but which do not have articles (or had an article deleted). Of course, if multiple articles ever are created with this or a similar title, then this would be a proper disamb page. As things exist now, though, I would leave the article deleted/empty/not redirecting so that if any of the individual works are notable -- and it is not clear that any are -- a new article is more likely to be created. Redirecting a particular, not overly unique phrase because it is slogan seems too attenuated to me. It would seem to violate WP:R #2 (it might also prevent people from finding notable authors of books with this title via search making it violate #1, too). Regardless, redirecting is certainly better than leaving this a disamb page. Novaseminary (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:RFD also states that different people search in different ways. World Social Forum is a valid redirect target under the redirect guideline for deleting and keeping as many organizations are identified by their slogan. I have not made any recommendation here as I have not checked the Wikipedia search engine to see if a dab page can still be maintained (this is the gist of this discussion), if this page can be converted satisfactorily into a list article (I have my doubts, though), or if a redirect should be established as we have one valid blue link. I will not be recommending a deletion as the slogan cannot sustain a standalone article. B.Wind (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have cleaned up the disambiguation page by removing inappropriate entries and adding appropriate ones. I believe it is now useful and correct. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - But it still does not disambiguate any existing Wikipedia articles that have a title anything close to this page's title. Per WP:D, disambiguation pages are "non-article pages that refer readers to other Wikipedia articles." If the one book you created a redlink for is the only candidate for its own article, why not delete this disamb page and then, if that book ever does get an article, make this a redirect to it? We don't have redirects to nowhere. Is there any reason to have this disambguation page to nowhere? Novaseminary (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It disambiguates topics that are on Wikipedia that would have article titles that are ambiguous with the page's title. The disambiguation page does refer the reader to other articles (the blue links), not to nowhere. We need the disambiguation page so readers reasonably looking for the film series or the anarchist network can find them. The book is red linked because the article linked also red links it. That doesn't mean it's the primary topic, but if it is determined to be the primary topic, the dab page would be moved to Another World Is Possible (disambiguation) and a redirect hatnote could be added to the author's article. The MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION sections cover those types of entries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as cleaned up by JHunterJ, who also saw the appropriate use of a "See also" section, a resource that is too often ignored when it comes to dab pages. B.Wind (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per JHunterJ and his/her helpful changes. No longer seems to have a reason to delete.  Cheers,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 10:53, 27 April 2010 (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.