Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crowd (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 of the debate was delete. With only two choices of article, and one of them a vintage Oscar nominated film, a dab page clearly isn't needed. I will attend to the disambiguation and page naming (since both are now blue) forthwith. kingboyk 22:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The Crowd (disambiguation)
Prodded as a unnecessary disambig. Debate began on the Talk Page. I figured the best thing to do would be bring it here. Please read the Talk page for debate to date. My vote is, of course, delete. Jaxal1 05:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It serves no purpose at all.  You only get here from The Crowd, and the only other place to go to is a redlink. NickelShoe 05:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No need to confuse users with unnecessary disambiguation pages. &mdash; TKD (Talk) 11:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article hasn't been written yet. As I said on its discussion page - have patience. --Mal 13:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And as I said on the talk page, there's still no point, because it makes two clicks to get to The Crowd (music). NickelShoe 18:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And as I replied to you on the discussion page, when I type "The Crowd" into the search box, it takes me straight to the article about the film. --Mal 20:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm the last post on the talk page, so no, you did not reply to me. And read what I said.  How many clicks to get to The Crowd (music)? NickelShoe
 * I replied to the concerns you had brought up, on that discussion page.. to which you have since replied. --Mal 22:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're wrong about previously responding to my concerns, because my concerns were in my last post. That was some other person.  Second, you have not answered my question.  How many clicks to get to The Crowd (music)? NickelShoe 22:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I did respond to your concerns, thanks. And by the way - it will always take two clicks to get to the article 'The Crowd (music)'. --Mal 01:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Three. Click "The Crowd".  Click DAB.  Click "The Crowd (music)" NickelShoe 20:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. No needed, at least with this name.  If we need a dab, then it should be at The Crowd since neither use is in my opinion well know.  Simply move The Crowd to The Crowd (film) for the better dab location.  Vegaswikian 00:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Vegaswikian's proposal above (although the disaster that occured at a football match which prompted The Crowd to form and produce a Number One charity single is quite well known in the UK). --Mal 01:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there is more cases where there's an article can also be refered to as "The Crowd". Red links or not, just having two entries in a disambig page isn't helpful at all in my opinion, and we can do without it. I do suggest starting an article with the title along the lines of Valley Parade stadium fire and then placing the content about the group of performers into the article. Strangely, I can't find any reference to The Crowd through Google. --Andylkl [ talk! 20:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Andy when I created the disambig article, I was following wiki guidelines which state that a disambig article should be created when there are two or more articles with the same name. Now I am reading that some people consider it counter-productive when "there are only two".  I suggest that either somebody sorts the guidelines out, or we follow the guidelines. On Google, there is a link to another band called The Crowd: "The Crowd is a twelve piece rhythm and blues band based in Ottawa."  This is obviously a potential extra disambig, if anyone ever writes an article about that group.  Incidentally, I had trouble finding anything about about the 'supergroup' on Google too.  I did eventually find this though: http://www.rockandpopshop.com/classic-hits.htm .. so I intend to write an article about The Crowd based on that information as a start.  I do think that the disaster should have an article of its own though: it was notable as being the worst disaster in British football up until that date. --Mal 20:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSDAB: "usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. So ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason." We've shown you the good reasons, right? NickelShoe 20:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You've shown me that the guidelines need clarifying. --Mal 21:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it is useful when there are only two. Like if there's two guys with the same name, but neither is more famous than the other and both have articles.  But that's only in cases where the disambig page is the page that pops up for searches.  It is never helpful to disambiguate two things at a page that says disambig in the title. NickelShoe 20:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes that's true, but I only follow it when there's say, two albums with the exact same title. Now that warrants a disambig page. But now you only have two entries (actually only one, since the other hasn't been written yet), I suppose we can work this around by placing the more notable article within The Crowd article itself, and then just insert a link to the second article at the top of the first article, and therefore bypassing the need of an additional disambig page. Like a sixth finger on a hand, it might look interesting but it serves no additional purpose (not that I'd want to remove a hypothetical extra finger in the first place). :P Anyways, if the group is that notable, I do recommend starting an article on it pronto so that there'll be a better chance this disambig might be kept. If you don't start it rightaway, I might do it! :) --Andylkl [ talk! 20:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And I see that you've already started the article! Great! :D Btw, hope you don't mind me changing the title a bit there. --Andylkl [ talk! 21:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope Andy - go right ahead. Help whatever way you can.  The 'Genre' in the infobox also needs changing, but I'm not aware of all the categories available.  I think we can talk about all that on the article's discussion page though. :) --Mal 21:25, 4 March 2006 (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.