Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Beelzebub in popular culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jeez, WP:AGF. I know this is where Beelzebub (disambiguation) points, I was involved in that move request several months ago. Of course, there is no other article on Beelzebub so the disambiguation page is simply unneeded. As far as I can tell, you've made no other points relevant to the debate. Mangojuice^talk 11:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you knew that it was the disambiguation page for Beelzebub, why not mention that in the Afd nomination and give reasoning why its not necessary. As a dab page, it is desirable that it lists any article that uses the name, i.e. Beelzebub and Baalzebul (Dungeons & Dragons), and is acceptable to list any other article where Beelzebub is of note, such as songs of that name, books of that name, and characters of that name. see Baal (disambiguation). John Vandenberg 12:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, WP:AGF: I had remembered incorrectly; I thought we had just gotten rid of the disambig page. But this is not a deletion debate on that page anyway: if you want a disambiguation page so much, edit Beelzebub (disambiguation), but even with the links you provided we would have 0 entries. Like it or not, Baalzebul (Dungeons & Dragons) is not Beelzebub: it's a combination of Baal and Beelzebub according to that article (which by the way has questionable sourcing anyway), and the names are significantly different. There was one song called "Beelzebub" by Bill Buford but it apparently has no importance: we don't even have an article on the album, currently. There are no books called "Beelzebub". Songs and books exist with Beelzebub in the name, but I really don't see a case for a disambiguation page there. Also, this debate already took place, and it was agreed that the page is not a disambiguation page, which is why it got moved to the popular culture page it's at now: see Talk:Beelzebub in popular culture. Mangojuice^talk 12:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not assuming bad faith -- I have so far been going on what has been written by others, and in the first instance waxed a bit lyrical about something that concerned me. Afd is useless unless participants ensure that due diligence is done before we delete the work of other contributors; and the second time I queried why you hadnt mentioned the dab page since you said you knew about it. If you had forgotten about it, that is fair enough, but I expect that other participants check Whatlinkshere before nodding their head, hence I called for a more critical analysis of the nomination before people voice their opinion.

And you are incorrect in saying that different English spellings are not acceptable on a dab page when the differences are caused by translation and the tide of tradition; they are most commonly used interchangeably to refer to the same concept, and in this case the reader is best served by having them together. When the sum of all knowledge is included on enwiki, the dab page would be a rather large list of notable works. The suggestion that I instead edit Beelzebub (disambiguation) would necessitate copying and reformat most of the entries from the nominated article, and would only side step this nomination and possibly violate WP:POINT. If the current article is deemed inappropriate, the appropriate solution is to rename this article to Beelzebub (disambiguation) and reformat it. John Vandenberg 14:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've now made Lord of the Flies (disambiguation) (that title was more in need of disambiguation, as there are two films and a song with the same name that actually have articles), and put a section in there with disambigs for Beelzebub. Beelzebub (disambiguation) now directs there. An added advantage of this is that someone searching for "Lord of the Flies" might actually be looking for Beelzebub and this will make it easier to find. Mangojuice^talk 14:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. One problem with this approach is that some of the entries that would appear on a Beelzebub dab page are unrelated to the "lord of the flies" translation, which is cute, but not typical. As you have pointed out earlier, the text and sourcing for the various meanings of the word is in need of attention. John Vandenberg 00:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)