Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trepanation (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. Nomination withdrawn with no deletion-supporting opines.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 19:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Trepanation (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I've tried to get this deleted via CSD and PROD, because I thought this was a fairly straightforward scenario, however others don't seem to agree, so I'll completely flesh it out here. This article has 5 entries, but links to only three articles: Trepan (drill bit), Trepanation, Trepanation (album). The other two enteries should just be deleted per WP:DISAMBIG, because they are dictionary entries. That leaves three links. Currently trepanation redirects to trepanning therefore that eliminates the need for that link; trepan (drill bit) is covered by the disambig at trepan. That leaves trepanation (album), of which I put a hatnote up for that at trepanning. Therefore this disambig is of no use and should be deleted. Moreover, prior to the incorrect addition of a link at trepan, nothing links to this disambig page. Wizard191 (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep: To take you last point first, Redirects should be orphans. As for the rest: -Arb. (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * the page is a useful summary of the sub-subjects
 * all the links go somewhere useful
 * none of your objections to the page seem to match any of the criteria listed at Redirects, while there are good reasons listed there to keep it eg who knows what incoming links from elsewhere on the web there are.


 * This is a disambiguation page not a redirect. That's a critical difference. When the title of the disambiguation page has "(disambiguation)" in the title it's because there's a prominent article that's the most common context, but that there are multiple other contexts (usually more than 1 or 2 depending on who you ask), thus the existence of the disambig page. In this case there's only 1 other context, therefore this is handled with the hatnote at trepanning. Wizard191 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's as may be - but while this page isn't a redirect, Arb's points stand - the links do go to useful targets, and the page provides a useful but brief indication of each different entry. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct. It is not a redirect. (Note to self: do not edit when short of sleep). My other points stand. -Arb. (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per -Arb. The page looks like a reasonable disambiguation page to me, and isn't structured in such a way as to offer confusing or non-intuitive links. The entries match or closely match the title. So long as there are more than two reasonable uses of the term, as we have here, a disambiguation page is warranted. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The concept of inclusion criteria, in the traditional sense, as applied to articles in mainspace, does not apply to DABS.  If there is more than one article that a reader could be looking for when searching a certain title or keyword, a DAB can provide a quick summary of each article to aid in navigation.  This DAB does not create confusion for readers where only one article is a reasonable target for the keyword, and therefore is useful.  Hatnotes alone cannot replace the usefulness of a dab, which can explain in adequate detail what each article covers.  This was adequaely explained to the nom by 2 other editors when nom tried to CSD and then to PROD the page.  Note that nom then culled much of the contents of the DAB in what looked like an effort to subsequently argue that it was not substantial or useful; under the misguided concept that the contents should not be on this DAB because they were already on anther DAB.  Nom seems to at least partially miss the point of DABS, and should probably study up on them at WP:DAB, WP:MOSDAB and wikiproject disambiguation before attempting to cull/delete others.   Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the above responses, I would like to retract this nomination. Wizard191 (talk) 15:00, 29 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.