Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncle Tom's Cabin (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  Eluchil404 00:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Tom's Cabin (disambiguation)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Per Criteria_for_speedy_deletion, which states to delete disambig pages pointing to a single article. Aside from the link on the page to Uncle Tom's Cabin, the only other valid article link is to Uncle Tom's Cabin (film), which is a subarticle of Uncle Tom's Cabin that was spun off from the main novel article. The link to Uncle Tom's Cabin (album) is actually a redirect to Cherry Pie (album), so it doesn't count as an article link. In addition, there seems no chance of there being any confusion between the album article and the novel article. Alabamaboy 01:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 *  Delete. Per above. --Alabamaboy 01:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing to weak keep. While I still think this disambig page has only a weak reason to exist b/c there is little chance for confusion in all of this, I've found more pages to add to that disambig page. This makes it an actual, valid disambig. Because of this, I'll support keeping it. Best,--Alabamaboy 13:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and edit Per nom and edit the book page so it links to the film page on top, not the disambiguation page.--Whstchy 01:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CSD as per nom. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I'm not just saying that; I examined the issue carefully. Yechiel Man  05:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, clearly unnecessary for two closely-related items. The third is not important enough to merit this complexity. --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Uncle Tom's Cabin (album) link is because that was (according to the article, at any rate) originally going to be the album's name, and is also the name of one of the songs off the album that was released separately as a single. Readers who are looking for the song and single by that name would be ill-served by removing this disambiguation article, which seems to be quite properly disambiguating amongst three things that have the same title: a novel, a film, and a song. Keep. Uncle G 10:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Both Uncle Tom's Cabin (film) and "Uncle Tom's Cabin", the song from Cherry Pie (album), may be referred to as Uncle Tom's Cabin, therefore the dab is needed. I used the redirect
 * Uncle Tom's Cabin (album), the proposed title of the Warrant album eventually released as Cherry Pie, and a song from the album
 * instead of
 * "Uncle Tom's Cabin", a song by Warrant from Cherry Pie
 * based on the style guide WP:MOSDAB. It "counts" just fine. As for "meriting" complexity, I have to ask, "What complexity?" -- JHunterJ 10:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: While this AfD isn't about what is posted at the top of Uncle Tom's Cabin, the truth is Neither is appropriate. Please don't get me wrong--I have no problem with disambig pages when they are warranted. However, as it states in the first sentence on Disambiguation, "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles..." The song is not an article; it's not even that significant a part of the article about Cherry Pie (album). As a result there shouldn't be either a mention of the song at the top of Uncle Tom's Cabin nor a link to a disambig page which truly doesn't qualify as a disambig page. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a song by Warrant called "Uncle Tom's Cabin". Users seeking it should be facilitated. Later in the WP:D: "A user searching for a particular term might not expect the article that appears. Therefore, helpful links to any alternative articles with similar names are needed." Also note the preference for the redirect that you would not count, from WP:MOSDAB: "This guidance to avoid piping means that a link to a redirect term will sometimes be preferred to a direct link, if the redirect term contains the disambiguation title and the redirect target does not. For example, in Delta (disambiguation), a link to the redirect term Delta Quadrant would be preferred over its target, Galactic quadrants (Star Trek)." Finally, the tracks on an album are significant. -- JHunterJ 13:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See my comment at the top of page. --Alabamaboy 13:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Some are significant, but not all. If the song "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is not significant enough to warrant (pun unintended) its own wiki article, then it certainly doesn't merit a redirect to the album itself.  That redirect should be removed entirely, IMO, but based on the other disambig links that have been added recently, I'll have to vote Keep. Tarc 13:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirects for subjects discussed within another broader-scope article are quite normal things. See Redirect. Uncle G 19:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep based on post AFD editting it is necessary. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for the sake ease of navigation. It isn't exactly intuitive for people to type "Uncle Tom's Cabin (book)" or "Uncle Tom's Cabin (film)".  --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Uncle G has it right, people may type in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" in order to find a different article or part of a different article. The requirement for a link in a dab page to have its own article is bogus. The decision should be made on the basis of helping a reader. Why do so many editors keep forgetting that? Chris the speller 20:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Necessary & useful disambiguation page. Also, shouldn't DAB pages be dealt with by MFD rather than AFD? ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 20:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Since the page points to several articles, it is useful, and no longer violates Criteria_for_speedy_deletion--Doom777 04:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As a sidenote, the page never violated G6. It always dabbed multiple targets; the nominator's assertion that redirects don't count for this purpose is unsupported. -- JHunterJ 10:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As a second sidenote, it's obvious that a number of editors support the view that redirects don't count with regards to disambig pages (especially since the relevant policy and guideline pages deal specifically state "articles," not redirects or terms within articles. Still, this is obviously a contentious issue and, since enough relevant articles have been added to this page, not an issue that will be settled here.--Alabamaboy 15:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not supported by the guidelines, that is. I believe the editors who you refer to are more familiar with the Uncle Tom's Cabin article than with the disambiguation guidelines. Yes, the disambiguation guidelines deal with articles (in the original case, two additional articles were disambiguated from Uncle Tom's Cabin: Uncle Tom's Cabin (film) and Cherry Pie (album)), and then with how to format the links to those articles (in this case, using the redirect Uncle Tom's Cabin (album) for Cherry Pie (album). I don't know why it's contentious. -- JHunterJ 15:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per JHunterJ and Uncle G. Even in the version when nominated it didn't qualify under CSD G6. older ≠ wiser 02:08, 26 May 2007 (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.