Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vonnegut (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. I will also move the page to a (surname) title instead of a (disambiguation) title -- as noted it is a surname page. JHunterJ (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Vonnegut (disambiguation)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A completely unnecessary disambiguation. It is completely orphaned as all entries are directly associated with and are listed at Kurt Vonnegut, which is the target of the redirect at Vonnegut. As partial name matches, none of the individuals listed are likely to be known as simply "Vonnegut", and it is highly unlikely that anyone will go out of their way looking for this orphaned disambiguation page. An attempt to prod this was declined with the spurious rationale that it contained four valid bluelinks -- disregarding the fact that it is completely orphaned and otherwise useless. If this page contained something about "Vonnegut" as a surname other than a bare list, there might be some basis for moving it to Vonnegut (surname), but as a disambiguation page, this is superfluous. older ≠ wiser 02:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - had the nom actually checked the linked articles, he/she would have noticed that all four were standalone articles, none of them being redirects. Surname disambiguations are common in Wikipedia (also, it is not uncommon for a dab page to be an orphan - but that's not a reason for deletion any more than having orphaned redirects deleted). Granted, a more appropriate for the dab page is Vonnegut, and there's no reason to move the dab page to that name and delete Vonnegut (disambiguation) as housekeeping. B.Wind (talk) 03:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I did indeed check the links. As I stated, ALL of them are directly related to the author and are linked from that page. Vonnegut is a redirect to the author's page, as is appropriate. There is no link back to the disambiguation page. There is virtually no way for anyone to get to the disambiguation page, thus making it entirely useless. It is normal for disambiguation pages located at the base name to be orphaned, but not when the page has (disambiguation) in the title. older ≠ wiser 03:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly there is a way: the Search bar. There will be another way soon as I will retarget Vonnegut to the dab page, as should have been done once four articles about people with the last name of Vonnegut were found. B.Wind (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The target of Vonnegut should be the author -- it is perverse to not consider him as the primary topic. And sure, someone might try searching for "Vonnegut (disambiguation)", but that is fairly unlikely. This page remains a useless disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 11:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Vonnegut is the name of the family, not just the author; so the retarget of the redirect to the dab page is appropriate. Also, please note that the use of the word "perverse" in the context of this discussion is contrary to WP:No personal attacks - even when it is posted in good faith. B.Wind (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ask any literate English speaker in the world what "Vonnegut" refers to. There are two likely responses: 1) the author; 2) no clue. Not one of the other persons would have a Wikipedia article were it not for the author. The dictionary definition of perverse is apt here: willfully determined or disposed to go counter to what is expected or desired; contrary . No offense was intended. older ≠ wiser 16:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  —older ≠ wiser 17:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a surname page, which is often (usually/initially) styled as a subtype of disambig page. See Surname. However, Kurt is obviously the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so Vonnegut should redirect to his article, and there should be a hatnote there pointing to the disambiguation page. I've added the asteroid, which makes leaving it at the current title a probable best option. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a surname page, then it is mis-titled and should be moved to vonnegut (surname). I could live with that, although it sets the bar rather low for surname pages as it says virtually nothing whatsoever about the surname. older ≠ wiser 21:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See Category:Surnames and sample some random entries, to get an idea of the average quality. Most of them are 2-3 lines/entries long, without any specific anthroponymy. (However, see the FA Yuan (surname) where the long-disambiguation-style-list doesn't come until the end. See WikiProject Anthroponymy for more details.)
 * I'd say this page is a tiny bit closer to a disambig currently, with the entry of the asteroid, and even more so if we were to integrate that link from out of the SeeAlso section, or if we were to include a link to Vonnegut Hardware Company (probably referred to as "Vonnegut's" within its region? The article doesn't mention if/when it closed... Hmmm.). Should probably be a redirect from one to the other, whichever way around it ends up. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Quiddity. --Zach425 talk / contribs 01:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to Vonnegut over redirect. Since this is a dab page with four bluelinks, it clearly should be kept. The name Vonnegut does not merely pertain to the author but to three other family members who all meet the WP:BIO notability bar and have standalone articles. Thus we have a redirect named Vonnegut and a dab page Vonnegut (disambiguation), which clearly shouldn't be. The disambiguation should be at Vonnegut, with the latter be either a redirect to the dab page or deleted after a move. Having a Foo (disambiguation) without having a Foo article makes no sense at all. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2009 (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.