Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue giant (disambiguation)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Blue giant (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am not mandating this dab article to delete but you may judge its available content if this passes or fails the WP:DAB & WP:DABPRIMARY requirements. j3j3j3 ... pfH0wHz 14:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - Blue Giant (the band) is obviously a term that requires disambiguation from Blue giant (the star). The question is Neptune. I find the association of "Big Blue Giant" with Neptune to be existent but weak. It appears to be the title of a picture of Neptune taken by Voyager 2. As with the nominator, I don't have a huge problem with the disambiguation page's presence, but personally, I think the best option is to convert it to a WP:HATNOTE at Blue giant. If we decide to delete the page, we should not include Neptune in the hatnote, because its connection to the name "Big Blue Giant" is so weak. Mz7 (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's wait for the further comments. j3j3j3 ... pfH0wHz 09:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep, see below Mz7 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep if Blue Giant Equipment Corporation is a notable company. Blue Giant hyssop (Agastache foeniculum) could go in See also. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I already added that to the page. Thanks for providing some possible terms. j3j3j3 ... pfH0wHz 09:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: I've now added a hatnote at Blue Giant (the band) to point to this dab page (should have been there before): if we did this with hatnotes we'd need to maintain them at both pages, a dab page seems tidier. Pam  D  14:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I've removed irrelevant entries. Blue Giant Equipment are sometimes referred to just as 'Blue Giant', so all remaining entries are useful. Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep and trout nominator Don't use deletion discussions for content issues. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * To Oiyarbepsy, so what should I use for discussing content issues if deletion is not advisable? j3j3j3 ... pfH0wHz 14:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The talk page. And to get more discussion to the talk page, use Wikiprojects, in this case WikiProject Disambiguation. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. Got it. j3j3j3 ... <span title="Disturb it at the Beach!!!">pfH0wHz 14:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, Oiyarbepsy, check the updated response from Mz7 below. <span title="It's empty at the Beach!!!">j3j3j3 <span title="Wanna complain? CLICK HERE!!!">... <span title="Disturb it at the Beach!!!">pfH0wHz 16:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Two entries would be too few, but as long as all three of these articles stay around, this dab serves a useful purpose. Nick Number (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to note, two entries is a valid reason not to create a disambiguation page, but not a valid reason to delete one. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep following the addition of Blue Giant Equipment Corporation to the disambiguation page. Nevertheless, I do not see any reason to trout the nominator for this good faith nomination. Prior to this addition, there were two topics requiring disambiguation: Blue giant (the primary topic) and Blue Giant (band). If these two topics had been the only topics that required disambiguation for the title "blue giant", then the use of hatnotes would be much more useful to readers per WP:TWODABS. I would support the use of hatnotes rather than a disambiguation page in that scenario. By extension, I would support the deletion of the disambiguation page. That right there is not a content issue—it's a matter which deletion is suitable for: hatnotes vs. dab pages. Now, TWODABS describes a situation where an unnecessary disambiguation page should kept anyway: that is when there could reasonably be other topics ambiguous with the title on Wikipedia now or in the future (emphasis added). TWODABS also continues to say that the disambiguation page may be deleted if, after a period of time no additional ambiguous topics are found to expand the disambiguation page, which seems to confirm that this is a valid reason to delete a dab page. Mz7 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2014 (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.