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. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-life[edit]

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

There are four items on this DAB page: one is a partial title match, one is a nickname for a one-episode non-notable character, one is an unencyclopedic POV term, and one is a non-notable song. Existence of this page is unnecessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, disambiguates ambiguous topics covered in Wikipedia. Not sure what else it needs to do to be kept, but the navigational function needs to be served. If the song and term are unencyclopedic, they should be removed from the encyclopedia before removing the navigational function for them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The song and the term are already absent from the encyclopedia. That's why the page up for deletion links to an article about an album and an article about the abortion debate - it's a DAB page for nonexistent articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are present in the encyclopedia, in the articles linked in the dab entries, which meet WP:DABMENTION. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we would include them if the dab page was in other respects useful or necessary (the example in your link is "Tail," which has many uses), but a dab page composed solely of non-articles (and one PTM, which isn't supposed to appear on a dab page) doesn't seem to serve any purpose. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The articles that mention the topic are articles, and would be valid targets for a redirect at the title. Since there are multiple possible target articles for a single title, there is ambiguity to be resolved. That is the purpose this disambiguation page serves. If the disambiguation page is deleted, an editor could create a redirect to any one of the possible "mentioning" articles, to the detriment of readers who are looking for one of the other ones. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it may not be the most essential dab page we have, but it's not causing any harm as it stands, and it means that if somebody searches for or links to anti-life, they are taken to a neutral page. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What reason would someone have to do so? (Also, WP:NOHARM.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? What reason would someone have for searching for "anti-life"? I can't look into the mind of a hypothetical person, but I think we can safely assume that people do search for anything and everything, wanting to know the meaning of the term. And since this term has multiple meanings, a dab page is the best place to take them. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The readership is a very large set. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the dab page not might generate much hits it may still serve some people searching for the term. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 14:12, 6 December 2011 (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.