Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Kaufman (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 speedy keep, as this is now clearly a valid disambiguation page due to additions to the page. BD2412 T 14:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sarah Kaufman (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It also breaks R3, being this not a redirect even. Uygurche (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uygurche (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment tried obscuring the history of this disambiguation page by moving it to Sarah Kaufman (martial artist), which is wrong because the edit history is that of a disambiguation page, not a martial artist. I have reverted this, and now the AfD can continue as a classic WP:TWODAB discussion. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 23:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per ONEOTHER and place the One other topic template on the page. Please see Talk:Sarah Kaufman. I closed that RM and placed a db-g14 disambig speedy deletion tag on this page. I had moved the dab page, which was then titled with the base name, "Sarah Kaufman", to Sarah Kaufman (martial artist), where its history was preserved. Tavix deleted that page a few minutes ago while moving the page to this nominated title, which before had only redirected to the base name dab page. So the dab page history was originally at the base name, "Sarah Kaufman", and was never the history of this nominated page, "Sarah Kaufman (disambiguation)". Done this many times because I think it's the right thing to do until someone explains otherwise in terms a four-year-old can understand. Thank you Tavix for explaining this so even I can understand.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there  00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC) 02:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're basically backdoor deleting the disambiguation page by moving it to an obscure, unrelated title and then redirecting it. This is wholly inappropriate, especially because these disambiguation pages should not be speedy deleted in the first place. The correct action would be moving the disambiguation page to FOO (disambiguation) and then prodding it or AfD'ing it should you think it be deleted. I'm dumbfounded that you think it is "right" to have the edit history of a disambiguation page be hidden behind a completely unrelated redirect. In fact, I would go as far as saying that I think that should merit the removal of the page removal right since you have done this "many times". -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So what happens to that dab page history when the FOO (disambiguation) page is deleted? It certainly won't be preserved, it will be deleted along with the dab page. My way preserves the dab page history, your way deletes it, doesn't it?  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 00:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Iff the disambiguation is to be removed, it should be removed using the proper channels—PROD or AfD—so it can be properly vetted for removal. You're bypassing that important step by sweeping the history under the rug. The result is the same, there's no dab anymore, with the important side effect of having mismatching edit history. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 00:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that all three, PRODding, AfD and speedy deletion, are "proper channels" for deleting a page. I preserved the dab page history, which was never at this page as far as I can tell. The dab page history was at the base name. It was decided at the RM that one of the two entries on the dab page was the primary topic, so according to the guideline's community consensus, the dab page is no longer needed and a hatnote will suffice. There is no question that this page should have been deleted, and it's a waste of editors' time to PROD it or send it to AfD. The best way is to speedily delete the redirect that targeted the base name dab page. You have not explained why the page must be PRODded or AfD'd instead of speedy deletion. Why would you want to waste other editors' time with PROD or AfD, when the best way to delete the FOO (disambiguation) redirect is speedy deletion under Db-g14??? Yer makin' me pull my hair out here, and I don't have that much left to pull out!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 01:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The RFC I linked is the latest consensus I have regarding WP:TWODABS, which found no consensus to delete them. Do you have a later one which allows them to be removed speedily? Note that G14 does not apply here, it is for one extant page, not one other page besides the primary topic. -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realized that the consensus had changed. So in the future, I will move the dab page to the FOO (disambiguation) title and place the One other topic template on the page. Forgive me for not noticing this before. I have altered my !vote above.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 01:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added three more entries. -- Tavix ( talk ) 03:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages, I have deleted the judge's wife. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: valid little dab page. Agree that complicated page history manipulation seems a bad idea: if the page ends up deleted, so be it, its history goes too. If it is kept, its history is preserved. Enough. Pam  D  10:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * keep has more than 2, valid dab. Boleyn (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2020 (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.