Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Wimpy Kid (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. This appears to be one of the rare cases where "ITSUSEFUL" can be a valid argument. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Diary of a Wimpy Kid (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:PTM. Only two of the things here have the exact name "Diary of a Wimpy Kid", and the rest are already linked from that page anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is already a template for the DOAWK series and although it could be edited a little (will add it to my TDL unless someone else does it), the template essentially does everything that this disambiguation page does. There is absolutely zero need for a disambiguation for this series when this is really what templates are for.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perhaps I am missing something here, but it seems to me that this does exactly what a disambiguation page should do, in a helpful and necessary context.  From the standpoint of an ordinary reader, we have four articles with this title: Diary of a Wimpy Kid (the first book); Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series) (the series of books); Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film) (the first film); and Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series) (the series of films). Not to mention the assorted articles where this is a part of a longer title.  Someone--perhaps less familiar with the mysteries of article naming--comes to Wikipedia looking for information about a specific one of these; without the DAB page they have to poke around in the text of an article, or figure out that they should go all the way to the bottom looking for something called a template (which doesn't even include direct links to all of the films).  Or, we can be helpful and provide this more easily comprehensible navigation aid. I'd note that, according to the page view statistics, this page is viewed several thousand times each month.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So either a.) they go to Diary of a Wimpy Kid and click through to the hatnote, or b.) they go to Diary of a Wimpy Kid and navigate elsewhere with the template. What's wrong with just having b.)? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. It serves a useful purpose and doesn't hurt anything. The template, if updated to improve other Diary of a Wimpy Kid items would be useful too, but there's no problem with having both. SchreiberBike (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument, not even for dabs. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL says: "There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument." --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I still don't see how this is not redundant to the navbox on the main Wimpy Kid page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep, clearly passes WP:PTM, four of our articles have this exact name, Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series), Diary of a Wimpy Kid, Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series) and Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film). Cavarrone (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - This disambiguation page is doing exactly what a disambiguation page should be doing which is distinguishing between articles that would otherwise have the same title. Some of the the entries are artguably partial title matches but there but that is an editting concern.  -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2012 (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.