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. Tthe arguments to delete are substantially stronger; DABMENTION discusses entries, and does not provide explicit guidance on entire pages consisting of non-notable individuals. However, this isn't enough to overcome the numerical tilt toward keeping, as the wording is admittedly fuzzy. I suggest a VPP discussion sorting this out before future AfDs are attempted. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Pearce[edit]

Terry Pearce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disambiguation pages consisting solely of non-notable individuals, in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY which says disambiguation pages are Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones. The page was previously kept on the basis that the text at NOTDIRECTORY was out of line with community norms, but as attempts to change that text have failed such arguments are no longer appropriate.

Arthur Harley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Disambiguations. BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as Harley dab drafter), this is very silly. WP:DABMENTION is a very well-held guideline and it cannot be voided thanks to a discussion at NOT which resulted (2 hours ago) in no consensus. Surely a consensus for eliminating the guideline has to eventuate first? J947 † ^edits 06:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:POLCON, when a policy disagrees with a guideline we follow the policy. BilledMammal (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't be bothered, but can someone make a VPP RfC on this? There were obviously problems that bore out in that hellish RfC in having it at WT:NOT. To void a guideline as well established as DABMENTION through a stray sentence added without consensus and upheld by a no consensus RfC chocker full with miscommunication is nonsense. Especially when the guideline was solidly upheld in a concurrent RfC. Also – it's not the normal conflict that the guidance at PAG is meant to cover for; this is a major policy oversimplifying an esoteric MOS aspect. J947 † ^edits 07:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In that concurrent RfC there was support for a change, just not the specific change proposed. If you want to open another discussion on reconciling NOTDIRECTORY and DABMENTION you are welcome to do so (keeping in mind WP:FORUMSHOPPING and that forty editors !voted in the RfC at WT:NOT), but until a consensus is produced WP:POLCON instructs us to follow the policy. BilledMammal (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, borderline speedy, as these are disambiguation pages for which the disambiguated topic clearly meet WP:DABMENTION. A reader who searches for one of these names may be looking for one of the listed topics, and will be taken to the appropriate Wikipedia article containing the information that we have on that topic. BD2412 T 02:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:DABMENTION isn't relevant, per WP:POLCON which tells us that WP:NOTDIRECTORY takes precedence. However, WP:DABMENTION doesn't support these articles either, as it requires that the topic is discussed within another article.

  Of the Terry Pearce's, none are discussed within the article; they are only included in lists.

  Of the Arthur Harley's one, the politician, could be argued to be discussed, but we can't have a disambiguation page with only one entry. BilledMammal (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Where in WP:DABMENTION does it require more than inclusion in a list to consider the term discussed in the article? The only guidance offered there is that: "If the topic is not mentioned in the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic". This appears to indicate that mention is sufficient discussion. Similarly, WP:NOTDIRECTORY stating that this is "not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith" is not in conflict with including a name notable enough to be in the encyclopedia. There is, therefore, no conflict with the policy at all, which is after all aimed at helping readers. BD2412 T 03:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The definition of discussed is "to present in detail for examination or consideration". If a mention was sufficient then it would need to say mentioned within another article rather than discussed within another article.

  The sentence from WP:NOTDIRECTORY that you partially quoted finishes by saying just the notable ones, with a link to WP:N. It's WP:WIKILAWYERING to argue that a sentence that says "notable" (which has a standard definition on Wikipedia) and links to WP:N means anything different than meets the notability criteria. BilledMammal (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The clarifying portion of WP:DABMENTION does say "mentioned". Since this is the practice that has been followed for years and years, it's unlikely anything else is intended. As for the notability criteria, did you think Wikipedia articles were just full of non-notable trivia? Obviously, if things needed to be independently notable to be mentioned in a list, then we wouldn't have lists containing anything at all that was not an article. For example, we would need to remove most of the short stories in the F. Scott Fitzgerald bibliography, because they are not independently notable. BD2412 T 04:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No part of WP:DABMENTION says that a mention is sufficient; it says that links may be included if the topic is discussed, and links should not be included if the topic is mentioned. The latter doesn't clarify the former in a way that expands the links that may be included. However, per WP:POLCON WP:DABMENTION is not relevant.

  The relevant sentence at WP:NOTDIRECTORY only applies to disambiguation pages. It has no relevance to lists like those at F. Scott Fitzgerald bibliography. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Line 1 of WP:NOTDIRECTORY also specifically cites WP:LISTCRITERIA. A disambiguation page is obviously a list. BD2412 T 06:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. DABs should not be indiscriminate directories of search results. By that logic every single name held by two or more people mentioned anywhere on wikipedia would require its own page. Are all DAB creators watchlisting every article they link from a DAB to make sure all the non-standalone entries are still discussed on their respective pages? Are they personally checking each new DAB entry to make sure they're not PROMO deletion end-run-arounds or BLPVIOs? JoelleJay (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JoelleJay: I can't speak to all disambiguation pages, but I personally checked all of the links on Terry Pearce and Arthur Harley, and all of these links are likely to persist unless there is such a major upheaval at Wikipedia that we are no longer allowed to list verifiable Olympic athletes and coaches, verifiable competitors in other highly notable international sports competitions, or verifiable runner-up candidates in national elections. There may be disambiguation page entries that should be deleted on such a rationale, but not on these two pages in particular. BD2412 T 01:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see how your interpretation of "discussed" would allow for deleting any DAB entry to a verifiable mention. JoelleJay (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • If something is verifiable and notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as part of a list, such as a list of Olympians representing a particular country in a particular sport, why would we not inform the reader that a person by that name (the one for whom they might be searching) can be found in that list? Probably the most common instance of these links occurs, by the way, with links to albums containing songs of the same name, which have also been around since the beginning of Wikipedia. It has always been the intent of the project to provide guidance to readers with questions like these. BD2412 T 02:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      This isn't just about subjects appearing in notable lists! Literally every trivial namedrop in any context would qualify the subject for a DAB entry if they have a common name. That turns DABs into a literal annotated search directory with, apparently, pretty much zero surveillance after an entry is added. We could easily have multiple entries on the same person, each going to a different blue link, and even if an editor discovered this we absolutely could not indicate this was the case on the DAB itself if the connection wasn't DUE on any of the pages (and per the single blue link rule). If any of the many thousands of BLPNAME-violating mentions I've removed from noble genealogy cruft happened to have been DABed, those DABs likely still exist with the same BLPNAME violation. There are also thousands of articles listing all winners of extremely minor honors--like "halls of fame" of <40,000 pop. counties, containing people with distinctions like "co-owner of the local Domino's franchise" and "principal of the local elementary school"; how are these in any way equivalent to Olympians in meriting DAB entries? JoelleJay (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:DABMENTION resolves your concerns with the clause if it would provide value to the reader. Olympians are likely to be searched thus would provide value by having them in a disambiguation page. Your local Domino's owner or school principal would not. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as it meets WP:DABMENTION. I appreciate and agree with BD2412's posts on the matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is just a re-litigation of the RFC at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#RFC_on_WP:NOTDIRECTORY_and_notability, which has yet to be formally closed. Would like a formal closure and decision there first. Natg 19 (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obscuring search results, and adding unnecessary complexity to curation. WP:DABMENTION only specifies when an entry without an article may be listed on a dab page. It does not stipulate having dab pages consisting only of DABMENTIONS. (Had we had a single notable Terry Pearce, I would probably not advocate deleting the dab page, but the page as it currently stands hinders navigation). No such user (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @No such user: I am curious as to how this obscures search results, when our search function is such garbage that the first set of hits that come up for an actual search for "Terry Pearce" are Brian Pearce (which mentions a "Terry Brotherstone"); Adam Pearce (which mentions a "Terry Taylor"), and Dave Pearce (which mentions a "Todd Terry"). A reader searching for someone named "Terry Pearce" is going to be very frustrated by these results, much more so than by our disambiguation page. BD2412 T 14:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BD2412: I concede that our search function is garbage (mention WMF and incompetence, anyone?) but I still don't think our job as curators is to provide workarounds for its shortcomings. By the way, I get rather useful results when I enclose the search term in quotes [1]. In this particular case, nobody seems to be forgotten, but I don't think we should maintain those pages as a matter of principle. No such user (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as much as I don't like it, it does meet WP:DABMENTION. echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. All that WP:DABMENTION basically says is If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader. It does not either permit or deny dab pages such as this one. I don't think that we have a firm policy-based reason either to keep or to delete this one (and precedents are few and far between), so it boils down to editorial decision. (Personally, I think the best middle ground is to delete such dab pages, subject to common-sense and IAR exceptions). WP:DAB policy is rather silent on the issue, and only mentions Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily as a principle. In fact, WP:PRIMARYRED covers the situation when a disambiguation page lists only one existing article by that name but not really when there is zero existing articles. No such user (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You're absolutely right about the first point: whether a given entry passes DABMENTION is a judgement call and there's nothing in the guidelines that prescribes either keeping or deleting all such conceivable entries. However, I disagree with your second point: there's no need for the guidelines to have explicit statements about dabs consisting solely of such entries. Basic common sense should be enough here: a dab page is appropriate if it has (typically) at least two entries and if those entries are appropriate. It's irrelevant here which exact criterion has been used to judge those entries as eligible, what matters is that they are eligible. – Uanfala (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.