Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drown (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 valid disambig page. I merged Drowning (disambiguation) to this page as they are really the same word and I see no point of both disambig pages. (WP:NAC)  C T J F 8 3  chat 08:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Drown (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Is this disambiguation page really necesary? RadManCF (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep  or merge with Drowning (disambiguation) I think it is necessary now, (I've just added two more entries - so it now has four as opposed to two when the AFD began) - but a merge would be OK.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep contains several entries, all of which are plausible connections to the topic. Entirely reasonable disambiguation page. Hut 8.5 19:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem with a merge. Hut 8.5 21:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks necessary to me. EALacey (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:DPAGES. This isn't a suitable deletion candidate. Holly25 (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge Actually, creating this page may have been a mistake, since Drowning (disambiguation) includes people with the surname Drown. The plan now should be do make sure that the information is properly combined, and the redirect for Drown goes to the disambiguation page, and not to the Drowning article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also notice Drown (surname), yet another disambiguation page. Holly25 (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it perhaps make more sense to keep this page, and merge Drowning (disambiguation) and Drown (surname) here? "Drown" being the common root? Holly25 (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems to make good sense to me, too. Holly25, would you do it?--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was just an idea in the case that a merge was definitely happening. The three pages are looking pretty well separated now. Holly25 (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Drown (surname) is not a disambiguation page. It is an anthroponymy list article. The name holders should not be merged into the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a mistake.
 * (Even tho from a technical and usability point of view the execution was botched. As noted by a colleague, embedded w/in their Keep argument, the two useful changes possible were:
 * Equal Dab'n, with the Dab at Drown instead of Drown (disambiguation)
 * Primary-topic Dab'n, with HatNote Dab using Redirect at Drowning (now added)
 * (As executed, tho, here was no link to Drown (disambiguation), and thus no way for most users to realize that a Dab existed, rendering it virtually useless. As the names suggest, the choice between the two approaches rests on whether "Drowning" is the topic most of the users who type in "drown" want -- and not just "the most users": just being in first place is not enuf. Unless the convenience -- to those who are seeking the "Drowning" article, when they get directly to it -- outweighs the inconvenience -- to all the others, when they have to read a HatNote and click on its lk before seeing the Dab page -- the Dab page should have the un-suffixed title so that everyone goes straight to the Dab.)
 * The problems in the details of the Dab's creation are irrelevant. The creator obviously opined that the affinity of "Drown" to "Drowning" is weaker than our previous arrangement acknowledged, and that would be a reasonable contention (not a mistake) even if the Keep opinions were not so dominant. --Jerzy•t 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:Dab is not definitive, but it strongly urges against Merge, by giving all those cases where combining is worth considering, without including -ing and -ed. "Drown" is far less tied to "Drowing" than "The Cure" is to "Cure". --Jerzy•t 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  —  Jujutacular  T · C 20:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep there are several entries and this is a valid dab. I wouldn't support a merge, as there are several on each dab. The surname page shouldn't simply be a dab, and hopefully in time it'll contain more info. Boleyn2 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as is, but should Drown redirect to Drowning? Other than that issue, I am quite content with the content after improvements by myself and others on the various pages involved.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Drown should probably redirect to Drown (disambiguation), since that page most directly reflects the search term and it still has links to Drowning if that's what the user actually meant. Then, with Drowning no longer the primary target for Drown, the Drown (disambiguation) line at the top of Drowning can be removed (there are two disambiguation lines there at the moment). Does that sound reasonable? Holly25 (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me. My problem is that I don't remember how to edit a redirect page, or I would do it myself. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. When you get redirected, there's a line underneath the article title with "(redirected from {pagename})", if you click on the link in that line you get to the redirect page and can edit it. Holly25 (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Drown, as WP:DABNAME makes clear, has unacceptably been redirected to Drown (disambiguation). (Rdr'n between them must go in the opposite direction.) Rather than disruptively move the nominated Dab pg during the AfD, i have reverted the change & installed the HatNote that will, in place, read
 * "Drown" redirects here. For other uses, see Drown (disambiguation).
 * Whether Drown should be the Dab (my opinion), or Rdr to the HatNote'd article (my interim solution), shouldn't complicate this AfD debate. --Jerzy•t 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Disambiguates different articles than "Drowning". -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but merge in Drown (surname) as a subsection, unless there can be cncylopecid material on the surname apart from a list. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Once separated, there is no reason to merge an anthroponymy list article back into a disambiguation page. They should be separated, and usually the only reason not to is because no one has bothered to yet. Once an editor has bothered, the article and non-article should stand. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now expanded the surname article, so it's clearly not a dab. Boleyn2 (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Drown (surname) is not an article of the normal sort, but a WP:Set index article, where more substantial prose is welcome but not required. The argument to merge it for lack of prose ignores the fundamental and thoro'ly discussed design decision to support the SIA page type. What i find a particularly pertinent point for that discussion is that Dabs exist to dab'ate topics that, but for competitors, could have had the Dab'd title. Frank Drown's bio (and others on the surname page) not only could not have been titled "Drown", each also is unimaginably far from being a person like Immanuel Kant, whose bio is entitled to a Rdr from Kant. They doesn't belong on a Dab, but that separate list including them is quite appropriate. --Jerzy•t 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and either move to Drown or redirect Drown to Drowning with a hatnote linking to both disambig pages. If there is no primary topic for the term "drown," the disambiguation page should be at the title Drown. If the primary topic for "drown" is "drowning", then Drown should redirect to Drowning. It's improper for the primary topic to redirect to a title with "(disambiguation)". See WP:D and specifically WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Propaniac (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'd mention in particular WP:DABNAME. --Jerzy•t 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are still worse problems on WP than the long neglect of the fact that the meanings of "Drown" are broader than those of "Drowning", but this one is worth fixing. --Jerzy•t 21:27, 23 January 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.