Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Herschel (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. John254 02:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

William Herschel (disambiguation)

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

superfluous dab page, hatnotes on 2 relevant pages suffice Tassedethe (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.   —Tassedethe (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as unneeded. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Please see WP:AFD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the rationale is the article. It certainly appears to be, here. Uncle G (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment- Since there are hatnotes present on both articles, consider tagging it with WP:CSD, explaining the reason. An admin will most likely consider it a genuine maintenance case and delete it, particularly since no article links to it. LeaveSleaves talk 17:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, in editing the article to put any such deletion request template on it, one is expected to read the article, and check that the use of the word "both" is correct. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * At the time I wrote the comment, there were only two uses present. Now that the article has been updated, my comment is invalid and please ignore it. LeaveSleaves talk 04:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a useful dab page. doncram (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep there are four items. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep even if there were only two, sometimes otheruses hatnote templates don't suffice, you have to look at what searchers are likely to request. --Bejnar (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Strictly speaking the two additions (William Herschel Telescope and William Herschel Museum) should not be included on the dab page for William Herschel as they don't conform to the manual of style (See WP:MOSDAB). Neither of these places is known simply as William Herschel (the first is also known as WHT, the second as Herschel Museum of Astronomy). On such a short page this is not particularly important, so I am happy to withdraw my nomination of this page. Tassedethe (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "If there is disagreement about whether this exception applies, it is often best to assume that it does." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note- I had closed the AfD after the nominator withdrew the nomination. But after realizing that the changes made in the article were reverted for failing WP:MOSDAB and upon discussion with the nominator, I have reverted the closure. Leave  Sleaves  14:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the extended p. was reasonably useful, and the application of the MOS rather arbitrary--a page listing the 2 people with articles, and two things named after one of them, makes perfect sense to me. the criterion for navigational devices is that they should be useful and unambiguous. DGG (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not arbitrary; it is unlikely that a reader looking for the William Herschel Telescope (for example) is going to enter "William Herschel" in the search box. That's the non-arbitrary criterion for not listing them on the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "If there is disagreement about whether this exception applies, it is often best to assume that it does." I admire your enthusiasm for deleting things, but please follow this rule. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "often". I think an editor's attempt to expand a dab page incorrectly just to influence an AfD result would be one of the times the assumption would be wrong. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "If there is disagreement about whether this exception applies, it is often best to assume that it does." You may not like that rule, but it is best to follow it. I didn't create the rule, and you invoked WP:MOSDAB, so please be polite, and follow the rule. You are putting a lot of energy into deleting a trifle of a page. And please, assume good faith in other editors, there is no need to invoke sinister reasons for people's edits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You used up your good faith assumption when you continued to ignore WP:BRD after being asked to abide by it. Yes, it's a trifle of a page, and its current consumption of energy (yours, mine, and other editors) is the best reason for its deletion, to avoid future energy consumption for a trifling navigational page that serves no navigational purpose. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The page seems useful and has a couple add-ons that are interesting and may be useful to someone. --Stormbay (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Now the page looks very odd with the bolding and lack of a bullet. It looks like it is telling me I have to click on "William Herschel" and he is the only one that matters. When I go to a disambiguation page, I don't want to be told that one choice is correct and the other is wrong. It looks very odd. What does anyone else think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks odd because disambiguation pages with a primary article more than one non-primary articles that are ambiguous. Since this one doesn't, the correct formatting looks odd.  The preferred solution is to delete the useless dab page. See WP:MOSDAB for the information about linking to the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I follow what you are saying except that that you want the page deleted. By putting one name in bold and removing the bullet it looks like you are steering people to what you believe is the correct answer to their query. It presumes that you know what they have come to the disambiguation page for. Disambiguation pages should be neutral and not advertisements for one of the entries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:38, 6 January 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.