Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (2nd nomination)

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 Delete. Fram (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wal-Mart (disambiguation)

Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This page was first nominated for deletion which resulted in a no consensus. The page was then moved to List of Wal-Mart articles since it was a list of walmart articles not anything which someone could possibly think they would get when they type in "walmart". That page was then integrated in the the walmart article itself and it's template and the page itself redirected. This page was then recreated. The page itself does no contain a single term that anyone could possibly think they would get by typing "walmart" it serves no purpose and is unused. The walmart template already organizes this information in a clearer fashion. Jon513 (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. It's clearly not a dab page, so it can't continue as is. Further, the content already exists elsewhere, so there's nothing to merge. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Same reason as AndrewHowse. RIP-Acer (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Many of the listings on this page are for topics not directly linked to Wal-Mart. If there were, for example, a song with Wal-Mart as its name (or part of), Wikipedians would have no problem with there being a disambiguation page to distinguish it. Meanwhile, this list includes a TV series episode, a neologism, a fossil bone, a golf tournament, and more.Shaliya waya (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that a person would type "walmart" and expect to see Something Wall-Mart This Way Comes, a 2004 episode of Comedy Central's South Park? Nothing on the list is named just "walmart" (expect for wal-Mart) they either have walmart in the name or is just related to walmart. There is no need to organized this information as a disamibg page when there is no confusion about them. Jon513 (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I, myself, often search for more obscure topics this way, and I do find them on disambiguation pages. If I do it, I am sure many others do too.Shaliya waya (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. The article does not meet the guidelines and specifications of disambiguation pages, per WP:DISAMBIG. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom; it's just not a real disambig page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The person who created this probably doesn't understand the meaning of "disambiguation" and thought it meant "articles about [subject]" instead of "articles that have the same or very, very similar names" Doc Strange (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think this is redundant and the nom demonstrates in the rationale that there's no better place to put this. Presumably the main Wal-Mart article has a link saying "For other uses, see Wal-Mart (disambiguation)" so anyone looking for spin-off articles has a quick reference page. I really don't see the problem, especially since there are no redlinks to be seen. WP:PAPER. 23skidoo (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there are 2 parts to the problem here. The first part is that the contents of the page under review are already embedded in the "See Also" section of Wal-Mart, so it is redundant. The second is that the page under review is not a disambiguation page. Just having the d-word in the title doesn't make it so, and this one doesn't meet the standard. WP:DAB. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"For other uses, see Wal-Mart (disambiguation)" -- this just doesn't make sense. The only use of the actual term "Wal-Mart" is for the store(s) and the company that runs it, and nothing else, since it's a trademarked term. Sure, there are a couple of neologisms and terms that use "Wal-Mart" in them, like "Wake Up Wal-Mart" and the "Wal-Mart camel", which is why they're mentioned under the current 'see also' section. But nobody searching for "Wal-Mart" is going to actually expect to find these other things, which is why the disambiguation page is not appropriate. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge into the see also section of Wal-Mart of whatever is still missing. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This has actually already been done; hence the reason that the disambiguation page was nominated for deletion. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Possible compromise:I have changed "Walmart" from a redirect to Wal-Mart to a disambiguation page. This is not in stone. But I would like to see if anyone here will accept that as a compromise.Shaliya waya (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  I disagree! Everything on the list is spelled "wal-mart"! Making walmart a disambig page makes no sense at all and is completely against every wikipedia convention. Why are you so attached to this page? Jon513 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for trying to find a compromise. I guess we're thinking of dab pages in different ways. I'm going by a rather strict definition, which is my understanding of policy. It seems that you're seeking to use it as a collecting point for articles, but that's my interpretation of your actions so you should correct me if appropriate. If I've read you correctly, then I think the right place, if any, to collect these articles is a "List of ..." page. I don't know what the exact title should be; List of pop culture references to Wal-Mart?

  In any event, I think Walmart should just redirect to Wal-Mart; it's just a way of catching inexact spelling. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I made it Walmart (disambiguation) after someone did not like having Walmart not redirect.Shaliya waya (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Which brings us full circle. It's no more a disambiguation page than is Wal-Mart (disambiguation). You, Shaliya waya, seem to feel strongly that this content deserves a place in WP, in addition to the "See also" section of Wal-Mart. I don't think anyone else here, including me, knows why you feel that way, and I can't find anywhere that you've explained why. (Again, if I've mis-stated your position, then plse clarify.) Trying to force the content onto any kind of disambiguation page doesn't fit the definition of a dab page; it's not about the name but about the class of page. Perhaps you should take the content to a userpage until you find an appropriate home for it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree I disagree even more with this than the regular disambiguation page! It's a horrible idea! "Walmart" is just not correct; the name of the corporation is "Wal-Mart", with the hyphen. The only acceptable use here is to redirect Walmart to Wal-Mart. I don't know why Shaliya waya is so adamant about making sure that there's a disambiguation page here; none of these cases meet the definitions & guidelines, per WP:DISAMBIG. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Zap. No way is this a disambiguation page. It might be retitled Wal-Mart odds and sods, or just deleted. Its content doesn't merit a hatnote to Wal-Mart. (One or two items within it might be intelligently worked into Wal-Mart.) Even if there were a Wal-Mart disambiguation page, it wouldn't contain most of this stuff: compare George Bush, a disambiguation page that quite rightly doesn't bother with articles such as The Lies of George W. Bush; the point being, when you're looking for "George Bush" you're looking for somebody called George Bush, not for a book (however good) about the beloved Leader of the Free World or whatever it might be. Morenoodles (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Majoreditor (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I've been wanting to compromise, several others are just using this board to play nasty politics or be seemingly hateful about this issue. I feel that a page like this is necessary because there are titles containing "Wal-Mart" in some form. There are some books that have been published with Wal-Mart in the title, too, though I haven't taken the time to research what they are, and they could be mentioned in the articles about their authors. Regardless, some page like this, which can be accessed from a link at the top of the main Wal-Mart page, is needed.Shaliya waya (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is playing politics and nobody is being hateful; everyone is interested in making a better encyclopedia, we just have different views of how to do it. I understand that you think a link at the top of the page is needed, but I along with other believe that the Category:Wal-Mart, the Template:Wal-Mart and the See also already organize this information in the best way possible. Jon513 (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2008 (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.