Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disambiguation (disambiguation) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy keep. Now that the rationale for deleting this page has been effectively canceled out, I do not see any consensus for deletion ever forming. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 04:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation (disambiguation)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

As a requested move discussion on Talk:Disambiguation (disambiguation), there is no need for this page since it only disambiguates between two pages. (Note that Disambiguation redirects to Word-sense disambiguation, which is the main use of the term). &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 01:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Disambiguate redirects to Ambiguity. Should that redirect be changed? Should Ambiguity be added to the dab? I feel like dabs are cheap and it isn't strictly necessary to delete this, personally. There is also a metalink to Disambiguation. Perhaps that's a secondary concern, but we seem to be happy to retain a cross-namespace redirect there from Disambiguation page as well. Dekimasu よ! 03:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC) (continued) For what it's worth, I've added a link to Precising definition to the dab page, as it's used in this prescriptive sense as well as the aforementioned descriptive sense. Dekimasu よ! 03:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The page is entirely unnecessary, and in fact was already deleted once, after an AFD in 2005. If we still had BJAODN, this would be perfect for it. Instead, we can put it up at WP:DAFT. Firestorm  Talk 03:36, 23 July 2009 Changing to keep per additional articles that have now been added, turning it into a legitimate dab page.  Firestorm  Talk 16:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The previous AfD is not at all applicable, because there was only one article linked from that page, and Disambiguation (audio) didn't exist at that time. Do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion? Dekimasu よ! 04:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment If there are 3 links on the page a hatnote wouldn't be a good solution so I will probably end up changing my vote to keep. But Im not sure that 3rd one really is a separate topic from word sense disambiguation. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 03:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep because additional entries have been added. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete . And hatnote where needed. Recreate if/when a third+ notable "Disambiguation" item appears. + m t  06:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are now more than two entries. Move to Disambiguation. + m t  14:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. A disambiguation page for two items where one is primary topic is obviously not useful, since a hatnote on top of the primary topic page to the secondary topic will be sufficient. However, I see that precising definition has been added to the page after the article was sent to AfD. If that is indeed a relevant link that belongs on the dab page, then the page should be kept. The precising definition article doesn't mention the word "disambiguation" anywhere, though. Is it really plausible that a reader looking for that article would use "disambiguation" as their search term? Jafeluv (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate. I added memory disambiguation, so that makes 3 or 4 items (depending on whether precising definition belongs there or not). cab (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep disambiguated per cab. Memory disambiguation belongs on the dab page, and so do word-sense disambiguation and disambiguation (audio). For three entries, a disambiguation page is useful even if one of the uses is primary topic. Jafeluv (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep At first glance, I thought this was someone trying to be cute by making a disambiguation page about disambiguation. However, since Wikipedia has at least 3 articles that refer to different types of disambiguation (one is linguistic, the others appear to be computer-related), then a dab page is appropriate.  The process of disambiguation applies in other fields where one is called upon to sort between more than one possible outcome, such as the legal principle of resolving an ambiguity in a contract against the author of the contract.  Mandsford (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  --  treelo  radda  18:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to disambiguation, replacing that redirect. This is a valid disambiguation list, it's just got a silly name.  There's no obvious primary topic, so the base word -- with no parenthetical qualification -- should be the dab page.  •  Also change the redirect at disambiguate to redirect to this disambiguation list.  And once the dust is settled and all the links are snapped, delete and salt Disambiguation (disambiguation) to keep the wise guys (such as myself) from re-creating every April 1st.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As DragonHawk points out, this is a perfectly sensible DAB page; it just seems silly since the same word appears in two different uses. At least three of the current pages are appropriate for a DAB. (I'm less sure about Precising definition.) I would recommend adding Ambiguity as well, possibly noting "See also". I have no objection to moving the page to Disambiguation in place of the current redirect. Cnilep (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2009 (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.