Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiln

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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiln

Tiln (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested PROD. Disambig page where the items disambiged are two red links. Protester created blue links, but neither is to the actual item, but rather to related items, so it's still a disambig to two red links. TexasAndroid 20:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It's a disambiguation page, not an article. It is now a disambig with two bluelinks, which is the important bit; the retention of the two redlinks does not somehow negate the bluelinks. Please see WP:MOSDAB for guidelines for the use of redlinks in disambiguation pages, and if needed raise a "Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion" discussion instead. -- JHunterJ 23:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Appropriate disambig page. The red links may refer to notable subjects, but if not that doesn't prevent them from being listed in a disambig page. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, if this AfD is going forward, per my response to the proposal. -- JHunterJ 10:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment My point is that, given noone has created articles on the two actual subjects, they do not appear thus to be notable enough for the project. At the least, not notable enough for anyone to have bothered. Links to related articles do not show notability of the linked items. A link to the play's author is not a link to the play. A link to a list of places is not a link to the place. The two items that are actually being disambiguated are not linked to anything. They are still red links, and thus IMHO do not qualify to be on a disambiguation page. The disambiguation page refers to red links being allowed if the item is likely to have an article written. But these two have been here for almost two years, with noone bothering to create articles. Disambiguation pages are for navigation between similarly named articles on the project. But this disambig does not serve that purpose. There is nothing at the two destinations, and so nothing to disambiguate between.

On an interesting related note, I just a couple of days ago had someone post on my talk page saying that I should actually be speedying these things, as by {{db-disambig}} they qualify for G6 speedy deletion. I have no intention of actually doing that, as I much prefer to give the chance for my judgement on these kind of things to be questioned, which PROD and AFD allow for, even if that means that some results go against my own judgement. But still. The fact that this is enough for Speedy deletion is an interesting twist. There's still the issue that JHunterJ considers linking to related articles to avoid the issue of it not pointing to anything, and my contention that related articles do not qualify. But still...

Finally, on the AFD vs MFD issue, I just looked at WP:MFD, and it talks specifically about being for things outside the main namespace. Disambigs are in the main namespace, so I would think that AFD is still the proper place for this discussion. - TexasAndroid 15:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

On the interesting related note -- that someone was me (the same JHunterJ), but not for "these" things. The speedy is for dabs with 1 or 0 blue links, so it doesn't apply here.

On the AFD vs MFD issue, a look at WP:AFD indicates that is specifically for articles, and disambigs aren't articles, so I don't think this is any better than WP:MFD. Perhaps there is no place for such discussions because they shouldn't really be needed -- either there are insufficient things to be dabbed and {{db-disambig}} should be used, or there are sufficient things to be dabbed and no discussion should be needed.

On this one in particular, there are two articles that mention Tiln, despite the Tilns themselves not being notable or interesting enough to merit an editor creating the articles. Such things can and often are still included in disambiguation pages because that helps the reader reach the page he or she was looking for -- again, please read WP:MOSDAB for its discussion of redlinks on dabs. In this case, a reader searching for Tiln likely wants either the play or the place, hence the disambiguation page will get them there quickly. There are no notability requirements for disambiguation pages themselves. -- JHunterJ 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if it would help, I'll be happy to create redirects from the entries to the blue links, so that there will be blue links for the primary entries in the dab. But it shouldn't be necessary to avoid this discussion. -- JHunterJ 21:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep—Notability requirements for an entry on a dab page have a much lower standard than requirements for an entire article about a subject. Maybe there is a misunderstanding that comes from this instruction in WP:MOSDAB: "Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") should be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article can be written on the subject." If, as the nomimnator contends, it is very unlikely that the two redlinked articles will ever have articles, then the instruction tells us not to link the article titles; it does not ask us to remove the entries from the dab page altogether. In other words, I see two valid entries on this dab page—if the consensus is that these articles will not be created then we would de-link the two red titles, but still keep the entries on the dab page to help with navigation to related articles that mention Tiln. --Paul Erik 22:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As pointed out above, the presence of blue-links on the page to topics directly & closely related to the red-links is an acceptable format for disambiguation pages. The argument that "if it's a red link, it is not a notable topic" is a statement of misunderstanding about the present content of Wikipedia vs. the scope of notable topics in the real world - there is a great deal not yet included here that is nonetheless notable. I would suggest, though, that a best practice would be to create an entry on one of the requested articles pages to accompany red-links on dab pages; that would be a concrete demonstration by the dab page author(s) that the topics are indeed notable enough for inclusion in their opinion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment In my opinion, disambiguation pages are not in scope for WP:PROD in general as they are not articles per se. Nor, in my opinion, should they appear at WP:AFD; rather, I would prefer to see them at WP:MFD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per JHunterJ. older ≠ wiser 02:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Just because the links are red at the moment does not mean the disambiguation page is useless. As long as articles can be written on those two topics, the dab page does what it is supposed to do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:33, 11 September 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.