Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Obama (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   no consensus. Clearly there is no consensus for deletion. I'm not sure that I see a consensus for the solution of redirecting to one person and mentioning the other in a hatnote, but this can be editorially resolved through talk page discussion.  Sandstein  11:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Obama
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a curious disambiguation page, as both entries are redirects to the same page. I feel like this would be better suited as a redirect to Family of Barack Obama because I believe that it would help navigation by making it a redirect (one less click). In addition, since it would be redirected to the index section, users can see that there are two Sarahs there and choose which one (or both!!) that they would want to read about. Also, there is a case for redundancy that could be made because the index section would effectively do the same thing as this page. However, since my bold redirect to that page has been contested, so I am taking it to AfD to get a consensus on this matter at the suggestion of User:Boleyn. Tavix &#124; Talk  19:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems like there is a rough consensus below to redirect this to Family of Barack Obama with a hatnote there to Sarah Obama (aunt of Barack Obama). I am completely in favor of this proposal and would like to replace my original comments about redirecting to the index with this proposal. Tavix &#124; Talk  18:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note 1: "Sarah Obama" has been nominated for deletion before, with a result to merge to Obama family. However, this was as an article and not as a disambiguation.
 * Note 2: I am advocating for a redirect position. While this isn't a deletion in its purest sense, a result in a "redirect" would, effectively, be deleting the disambiguation. Therefore, I'm sorry if this is the wrong forum for this, but I feel like it is the most effective and relevant place for this (WP:IAR?). Tavix &#124; Talk  19:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Tavix &#124;  Talk  19:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Both redirects go to different sections of the same page. A reader clicking on them wouldn't even necessarily be aware that they are in the same article, as they are taken directly to the relevant section. A redirect could easily end up with readers seeing whichever Sarah Obama was first mentioned, and thinking this is the one they are looking up. Boleyn (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the reasons for speedy keeping apply to this nomination. Please see WP:SPEEDYKEEP for more information. Tavix | Talk  20:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If they are taken to the index, it clearly shows at that section that there are two Sarah Obamas. By clicking on each Sarah in that index, people can be taken to the Aunt or the Grandmother. It does the same thing as this disambiguation. I'm not understanding your "same article" point, as that applies with my proposal and the way it is now. Tavix | Talk  20:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * A bit odd, but keep, as it makes it clearer there are two people. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yup it's all weird but despite both linking to the same article, They're 2 different people so may aswell Keep it. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 20:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect dabs are for multiple articles, not the same one. MOSDAB "are designed to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics", "find the specific article", "because the basic purpose of disambiguation is to refer users to other Wikipedia pages" (emphasis own). Target can disambiguate. Widefox ; talk 00:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've marked for cleanup. This appears to me to be a gratuitous use of a dab, and fails WP:TWODABS / WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT "If there is a primary topic located at the base name, then the question arises whether to create a disambiguation page, or merely to link to all the other meanings from a hatnote on the primary topic article.". The PT is (a redirect to) Family of Barack Obama. Additionally, as they are non-notable people (per WP:NOTINHERITED), I thought it was quite usual to not list non-notable BLPs on dabs anyhow (a minor point). Widefox ; talk 00:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment, both entries are valid per MOS:DABMENTION; as both entires are valid and neither is a primary, there is no possible cleanup to do. The only options with changing the dab are to keep it as it is or redirect it to the page (which this dscussion will decide). I'll remove the clean-up tag because there really is nothing that can be done other than duplicate this discussion, but of course, if you strongly disagree, you can rv. Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One entry is valid per MOS:DABMENTION. That topic is Family of Barack Obama. Therefore it is primary. We know which article the reader wants. It's that simple. Taking a related (but not identical) example of a company - we never list the same article twice if it had changed its name but had the same initials (which is very common), we just include both names on the same entry, and the article can disambiguate.
 * MOS:DABMENTION "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. In this case, the link does not start the line, but it should still be the only blue wikilink." Agree that based on the wording of DABMENTION, there would be two topics. There's still only one article, and the disambiguation of the two names can be done in that one article.


 * Comment I consider it needing a cleanup currently, as one valid topic is listed twice, but agree best to keep discussion here. I'll ping dab project, and any discussion about only listing an article once per dab page is best discussed there. Widefox ; talk 09:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. These are two distinct persons. And DABMENTION specifically says topics, not articles. I could agree with a redirect to the index, but to be honest, I found the index as currently formatted very confusing. As it is, it is better to have direct links to each person from the dab. older ≠ wiser 12:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Two non-notable people with little chance they will be notable in future, so both links (all links on this dab) will always be to the same article, so this dab only gets in the way of always going to the same article. The logic of DABMENTION allowing multiple entries to the same article seems at odds with the definition of aiding readers find the article, and this logic should apply to all types, not just persons. If we really want DABMENTION to allow multiple entries to the same article, dabs can fill with examples such as initialisms to companies with changed names, alternative names etc. (although they may not be DABMENTIONs, but rather article names but the logic still applies). Disambiguating at the target section is common, and eliminates this redundant dab. Practically, Sarah Obama can redirect to Family of Barack Obama or Family of Barack Obama with a section redirect hatnote (the later already having a sentence to disambiguate) Widefox ; talk 11:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * DABMENTION is explicitly about subjects and topics NOT articles. This is the result of extensive discussion. It is unusual, but largely irrelevant that both subjects are treated in separate sections of the same article. older ≠ wiser 13:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes this is a corner case. As we can easily disambiguate in the article the dab just adds one click before getting to the article. Any dab just linking to the same article is generally a disservice, with one caveat - I agree with JHunterJ's comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation - a R with possibilities is something else. Both redirects here aren't, and they have no chance of being. Widefox ; talk 14:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are several article space links to Sarah Onyango Obama. While there are no article space links other than from disambiguation pages to Sarah Obama (aunt of Barack Obama), there is still a need for disambiguation. Redirecting Sarah Obama to the section Family of Barack Obama#Sarah Onyango Obama with a hatnote there to Sarah Obama (aunt of Barack Obama) might be better than a disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 15:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. Widefox ; talk 15:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I love this suggestion. I'll update my original comments to support this. Tavix | Talk  18:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment to User:Clarityfiend, User:Davey2010, User:Bkonrad and others: I just conducted a thorough clean-up of Family of Barack Obama. Before it was confusing whether there were two Sarahs or not, but now I think it's clearer and unambiguous. Thoughts? Tavix | Talk  23:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. A redirect hatnote in that section (or per above) can be independent of it for clarity anyhow. Widefox ; talk 11:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it still requires the reader to scan the list to locate the two Sarahs. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A hatnote doesn't. Widefox ; talk 14:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: There. Are sections on two different women, each of whom would have had a redirect from "Sarah Obama" if they were the only one. The reader is best served by this dab page. Pam D  15:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Served better by adding an extra click (without the helpful context of the article to decide)? Widefox ; talk 15:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, entirely per WP:TWODABS. There are only two topic in the encyclopedia corresponding to the title; each is now mentioned in the other, so a disambiguation page is not required as a tool for navigation. bd2412  T 17:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What, and people who look for the undisambiguated "Sarah Obama" are just SOL? Where does WP:TWODABS say to delete a base-name dab where there are two ambiguous topics for that name? older ≠ wiser 17:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pageview statistics indicate that a little over a thousand people looked for "Sarah Obama" in the last 90 days. The largest portion of these correspond with a spike in interest in late November coinciding with Sarah Onyango Obama, at 94 years of age, receiving an award from the United Nations for the work of an education foundation that she heads. A Google search for "Sarah Obama" returns information only about this elder Sarah Obama. The other "Sarah Obama" merely exists and does not appear to have any notability whatsoever outside of being part of the Obama family. Given these circumstances, I am very comfortable saying that Sarah Onyango Obama is actually the primary topic of this name in terms of reader interest and historic notability, and likely merits a freestanding article at this title, or redirected from this title. bd2412  T 20:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, an interesting update. On one hand she may be a redirect with possibilities (WP:BLP1E / WP:CORP dependent), on the gripping hand it's not written or tagged as such yet, but given this info I'm qualifying my !vote to redirect to her section and be done with a hatnote there. Widefox ; talk 01:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There was originally an article on this subject at this title (this was the last version as it existed in 2008, before being merged to the "family of" article"). In the intervening six years, the subject has been covered more extensively, and has recently received an award from the UN. It may be that she received this award due to her family situation, but we don't know that one way or the other. [[User:BD2412/deletion debates| bd2412] T 02:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My suggestion here would be to update her section in Family of Barack Obama to include the new findings and if/when it becomes apparent that her contributions are worthy of an article (and pass WP:NOTINHERIT), then an article could then be created. Tavix | Talk  18:26, 12 January 2015 (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.