Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (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 no consensus. Secret account 00:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wal-Mart (disambiguation)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is not really a true 'disambiguation page', as it's more a list of links to other Wal-Mart-related articles that are already linked to from the Wal-Mart article itself. Furthermore, there's no need for a disambiguation page anyway, since anyone searching for "Wal-Mart" is obviously looking for information about the company, and there's no other companies of the same name. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete should all be at Wal-Mart. JJL (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal a disambiguation page is more clear than listing these in a long article Shaliya waya 02:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment page has been improved but would still prefer a See Also section at Wal-Mart, even if it re-listed items previously linked within the page. These are all Wal-Mart variants and not a true dab. JJL 19:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as un-needed disambig, all pages in question are linked from Wal-Mart anyway. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of Wal-Mart articles, page now has enough to be a valid list. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal I created this page. When it was proposed for deletion, I had not completed the list. Now, there are more pages listed here that would not belong on the Wal-Mart page. Shaliya waya 15:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The following vote was misplaced on the article's talk page: Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like a diambiguation article to me.--Folk smith (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The links on the page are more a 'see also' section than a 'disambiguation' list. Dr. Cash 14:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: It is a disambiguation page, but it isn't necessary. As said above, the main Wal-Mart article should cover all of these. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal: The main Wal-Mart page should NOT cover all these topics. It does not make sense to put information on TV shows, or the Wal-Mart camel, for example, on the main Wal-Mart page. Shaliya waya 15:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: The last three would not belong on the Wal-Mart article page. That is what led me to creating a disambiguation page in the first place.Shaliya waya 14:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * p.s. I just added more listings since the above comment, and reorganized all listings into categories, so what I mentioned above as the final three are no longer the final three. Obviously, the name of everything that is named "Wal-Mart" today originates from the store's name. But the term in some cases has moved so far from being directly related to the store itself, that some of these listings cannot be described in the Wal-Mart article, hence the need for a disambiguation page. Therefore, I would like everyone who voted DELETE to reconsider. Shaliya waya 14:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * After re-reviewing the revised page, I still have to go for delete. The items in the 'operations run by wal-mart' section are all mentioned in the main Wal-Mart article themselves, so this is pointless. The 'advocacy groups' are also all mentioned in the main article as well, so this is unnecessary. The other items listed are just 'see also' sections, and don't belong in a disambiguation page since their titles won't be confused with the title of the disambiguation. I'm not even sure why there are articles that even exist for Wal-Mart camel and Wal-Mart First Tee Open at Pebble Beach. The fossil article should be renamed and redirected to an article entitled with the scientific name of the organism, per biology article guidelines. The golf article probably should be merged with History of Wal-Mart. The link to the Walmarting article is more appropriate for 'see also'. The link to Wal-Mart at urbandictionary needs to be deleted (urbandictionary does not meet wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. The 'Wal-Mart bill' link does not go to an article with that name; it goes to the health insurance subsection of Criticism of Wal-Mart, which is misleading (the criticism article is already linked from the main Wal-Mart article, and I don't see any reason to highlight any particular subsection of that article in a disambiguation page. Dr. Cash 22:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete These terms are not truely ambiguous, no one would visit the Wal-Mart page in search of anything but Wal-Mart. Just because a term has a similar root does not make it ambiguous. -Verdatum 16:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal The whole point of a disambiguation page is when multiple pages with the same or a similar-sounding name have different meanings, regardless of whether or not they have common roots. Disambiguation pages are needed to distinguish commonly named objects, like the animal mouse from a computer mouse, or Washington DC from Washington State, or the band Hot Chocolate from the Hot Chocolate beverage. And since Wal-Mart has become so ingrained in our household vocabulary, there are many things that are generically called "Wal-Mart" now.Shaliya waya 15:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply I'm confused. It appears you've rebutted by restating my argument.  When searching for "mouse" it is entirely possible that a user is interested in either the animal or the peripheral device.  They share the same name.  This is not the case with this list of links.  They are variations on the root of "Wal-mart" but would never be referred to just as a "Wal-mart".  The only notable exception I can see is Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, and even that is a stretch.  Would someone ever say, "Hey, have you ever seen a documentary called 'Wal-Mart'?"?  In conclusion, I'm not convinced. -Verdatum 20:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete . These are terms that are in need of no disambiguation. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 18:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * While my comment stands, my !vote has changed per Wphq - see below. Changing to Rename accordingly. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 18:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't see why it hurts to have such a disamiguation page. Whoever made it seems to have done a good job of it. I give him/her all the credit. It just does not seem possible to list all of these under "See also" on the main Wal-Mart page. If this page were to be deleted, there would be many other disambiguation pages deserving of deletion, such as this one or this one. Many cities have disambiguation pages of things pertaining to that city and bearing their names. On this one, some of the pages listed do not have anything to do with the Wal-Mart corporation directly. Sebwite 18:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to check out WP:NOHARM and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as far as this goes. Maybe those other articles do exist, but maybe they shouldn't be here.  Meanwhile, as this is not a true disambiguation page (nothing in here really needs to be disambiguated), there is no need for it, and it is indeed a thorn in the side of Wikipedia. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 18:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. It isnt a true disambiguation page.IslaamMaged126 20:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to Wal-Mart or Wal-Mart corporate family. 132.205.99.122 21:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep You would not have the Colorado Rockies on a see also section for thr Rockies (moutains) though the team is named after the mountains. Thats what disambiguations are for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.43.21 (talk)
 * Comment This user has only four contributions. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep looks pretty good to me. Has 13 different meanings listed. 12 are other Wikipedia articles. Many are not the Wal-Mart chain. 12.4.192.130 16:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment User has only two contributations. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep There seem to be things listed that would not conveniently form part of the main article on the company. Peterkingiron 00:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, contrary to that, virtually everything on this so-called "disambiguation page" is already in Wal-Mart. This article is simply not a disambiguation page, and one is clearly not needed. Dr. Cash 00:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal On a long page like Wal-Mart, these unrelated topics named Wal-Mart are not clearly noticeable, that is if they are there in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaliya waya (talk • contribs)
 * If they're not noticeable, then either you're not very observant, or they were removed for some reason. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 17:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename to List of Walmart Articles or something similar. I refer you to WP:DISAMBIG, and specifically to the section called Set index articles.  The page under AFD is exactly a set index.  The current page is useful for navigating Walmart related articles, but is not a disambiguation page as defined in the disambig content guidelines.  The simple solution is to remove the disambig template from the page, and rename it to reflect its purpose. -- Whpq 18:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ...you know, I never thought of that as an option. This isn't a dab page, QED, but you are right, it does serve a purpose.  !Vote changed accordingly. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 18:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I still see no purpose for renaming to 'List of WalMart Articles', as suggested; that would just add to listcruft and serve no purpose in wikipedia. Dr. Cash 20:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it is "listcruft". Aside from one external link that should be removed, the list are for articles that exist on Wikipedia, and are related to Walmart.  The article serves as a navigation aid.  Note that WP:DISAMBIG explicitly acknowledges set index articles.  Explain why you feel this article would not be a set index. -- Whpq 20:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is clearly listcruft (compare with Foods that begin with Q); also we shouldn't have such eponymous lists for names on Wikipedia, especially considering this is a company name. Tuxide (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the Wal-Mart article is very long. Whether or not alternate uses of Wal-Mart are listed there, it is not a very reader-friendly place to put them. A short page like this one with a list increases the ease in finding alternate terms. That is what a disambiguation or similar page is for. Shaliya waya 20:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, a disambig page is not for finding alternate terms. A dismabig page if for distinguishing multiple articles that would have the same name.  What we have here is a set of articles related to Walmart, not a set of article all named Walmart that need to be disambiguated.  So the contents of this article don't qualify it as a disambiguation page, but they do make up a set index which is why I've indicated that it should be renamed in accordance with wikipedia guidelines outlined in WP:DISAMBIG. -- Whpq 20:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, cruft. Redundant to Template:Wal-Mart.  Tuxide 18:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment user Derek.cashman is being prejudicial. Nowhere in the policies does it says that anonymous votes are not counted, only given less weight. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I was confused regarding anonymous users in this process. I am most familiar with the WP:GAN process, in which anonymous users are forbidden from reviewing articles. I was applying that same logic to this process. But reading the guidelines for WP:AfD, I don't see anything expressly forbidding anonymous users from participating. That being said, it should be noted that two users that voted keep above, have made less than 10 edits, according to their user contributions page. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would expect that if anonymous contributions to something like this were not allowed, the page would be semi-protected. I have never seen an AFD discussion semi-protected. These may be people who simply forgot to sign in. Shaliya waya (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename User Whpq makes a good point. I vote for a renaming of the article to reflect that this is a listing for articles related to Wal-Mart, but not necessarily included on the Wal-Mart article page. --Folk smith (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You've voted already above. Please redact the vote you do not wish to submit. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - not a disambiguation page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:48, 6 December 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.