Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagle Day


 * 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 no deletion needed. Reformatting instead. Tavix (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Eagle Day

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an unneeded disambiguation. I propose that this page be deleted and that Eagle Day (football player) be moved to the new page. The football player already has a hatnote at the top of the article just in case someone wants any of the other terms. The other two terms is a single episode from a TV show and a nickname for a battle, none of them has their own article. Moving the football player to Eagle Day also solves a disagreement over what the disambiguation qualifier should be as well. Tavix (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It might be useful, that nickname was for a battle which was very important, of more importance than that person, it is a historical nickname which is very notable. As for the TV show episode, it might help some people, in the least. This disambiguation page should be kept. --Knowzilla 19:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a hatnote on the football player's article, so there should be no problem finding the battle or the TV show... Tavix (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read what you said, however a disambiguation page may still be more helpful. Two quick examples would be: (1) A person may not spot that text if trying to find information fast when the article is moved. The hatnote may not be visible enough (especially to people with disabilities). (2) Search engines will show content from the article which is related to that person, if someone is searching for the battle, etc, they might think that Wikipedia doesn't have it. --Knowzilla 19:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No? Let's break apart your "examples". For #1, "disabled" people would see a hatnote just as fine as a disambiguation. Its the same text size, same font, ect. Visually pleasing is not the purpose for disambiguations: they are meant to guide a person to the correct article when it is ambiguous, which the hatnote does perfectly well. For #2 however, if one searches on Google for Eagle Day Battle, Wikipedia links "Battle of Britain" as number 5. If one searches for simply "Eagle Day" the football player shows up, with the disambiguation page not even on the first page. I don't quite understand your logic from that one. Tavix (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

 : Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tavix (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've undone this relisting; the five-day period is not yet up, and so should not have been relisted. seresin ( ¡? )  08:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't know it had to be every 5 days. Tavix (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't see how the encyclopedia is enhanced by deleting this admitedly obscure redirect.  Un  sch  ool  06:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you explain please? It isn't a redirect, but an unneeded disambiguation. Once deleted, Eagle Day (football player) will be moved to the new open article space. There is currently a hatnote on the football player's article just in case someone is looking for the battle or the TV episode. Tavix (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Tavix, I miswrote that, I should have said "admitedly obscure dab page". Anyway, (and I don't speak from policy—because I'm unlearned in said area) I don't see how this hurts to have this page.  With this dab page left extant, the worst thing that someone will happen to someone looking for the football player is that they'll have to make one additional click.  Look, I don't feel strongly about this.  I don't like the current note hatnote because when they involve the use of the #-sign, I think they confuse our casual visitors.  What about this?
 * Move the current Eagle Day to Eagle Day (disambiguation)
 * Move Eagle Day (football player) to Eagle Day
 * At the top of the football player's article place this:.
 * Would that work for you? I just don't want to delete the dab page, but at least this way you get the nice clean article title that I suspect you're looking for.  What do you say?  Un  sch  ool  07:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can see that working too. It still does what I'm trying to accomplish. The only problem I can see with it though is if someone is trying to get to the battle/episode, they need an extra click, but its not that major... In fact, I might as well do it right now. Tavix (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2008 (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.