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. There seems to be a disconnect between the guideline on whether this should exist and editors feelings on such. A consensus to delete this is not going to form. Suggest meta discussion on the disconnect elsewhere. StarMississippi 14:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY - Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones.
Neither the gymnast nor the electoral candidate are notable, and thus a disambiguation page here violates WP:NOT and cannot be kept. BilledMammal (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the outcome of this discussion closed only last month, and MOS:DABMENTION - "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader". LugnutsFire Walk with Me 08:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New information has become available; none of the editors in that discussion were aware of this aspect of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Further, MOS:DABMENTION (a guideline) and NOTDIRECTORY (a policy) are not in conflict, as not all notable topics warrant their own article. When a topic doesn't warrant its own article but is notable, it can be mentioned in dab pages per DABMENTION, but when it is not notable it can not, per NOTDIRECTORY. BilledMammal (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your adamant on your deletion stance, so I'm not going to argue the point with you. Thanks. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 08:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given the RfD (I created this dab page). It's helpful: it clearly disambiguates between two encyclopedic-but-not-notable topics. The reader is helped by this page existing; it's a better bet than to leave them staring at likely unhelpful search results. That's the important part out of the way; helpfulness really is the primary consideration when it comes to navigational pages like this one. DABMENTION, as a specific guideline, is absolutely the policy to refer to here as it covers this situation. This is what DABMENTION says:
If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader.
Nothing about a notability requirement, nothing about this section only applying in some rare, NOPAGE exception. I believe that the likely undiscussed turn of phrase in NOTDIRECTORY should be clarified, and that a wider discussion should take place on the merits of no-blue-link dab pages. But for now, this should be kept – as for DABMENTION itself, I'm fairly confident that the nominator's view is very different to practice. J947 † edits 09:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDIRECTORY (policy) and it's intersection with MOS:DABMENTION (guideline). On balance the list has contextual information showing reasonable encyclopaedic merit, so passes NOTDIRECTORY point 1 and I don't consider it a set of loosely associated topics (point 2) - otherwise we'd be deleting every list of people by surname which I imagine is not a good idea. The other points of NOTDIRECTORY don't seem to apply to me. In terms of DABMENTION I tend to think this adds substantial value and am completely unconvinced by the merit of the argument that I've seen recently that the search function is a better way of getting to articles - an argument which seems to have no foundation in policy and which, in my experience, is flat out untrue. The politician is certainly someone who I can imagine showing up more on PapersPast searches, and the athlete is someone who competed at the top-level of international sport and may well have more that can be written about them without necessarily having their own article. So, on balance I think keeping here is reasonable, especially given that there has been a recent RfD discussion that is related. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a reasonable solution to the RfD. (This disambiguation page is clearly not a complete listing of every person named Arthur Harley: it is an index of articles in Wikipedia that mention Arthur Harley). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIRECTORY is very clear that the page should only list the notable Arthur Harley's. As there are no notable Arthur Harley's, the dab page cannot contain any entries and thus should be deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DABMENTION, this is a misunderstanding of WP:NOTDIRECTORY due to a bit of casual verbiage that should be clarified. The context is that Wikipedia is not for simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. It follows that if a disambiguation page listed all Arthur Harleys, including those without any encyclopedic merit, it would be a violation of that. However, the two listed here are okay because they have encyclopedic merit—namely that we have encyclopedic article content on each of these Arthur Harleys. Therefore, anyone looking for such information would be able to find it by using the disambiguation page and it is a Good Thing to help our readers find such information. --Tavix(talk) 13:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that is the intent - is it really beneficial to list every mentioned John Smith at John Smith, and to have a disambiguation page for every non-notable person mentioned on Wikipedia? This also causes additional issues with choosing the target; while there is always a clear target for notable individuals, as either their standalone article or the article that covers them in the context of a broader topic, that is not always the case for non-notable individuals who might be mentioned in multiple articles.
In any case, policy is currently clear that dab pages should only list notable individuals, and until there is a consensus to change policy we must follow it - while an argument can be made that the MOS disagrees with this, policy is controlling over the MOS. BilledMammal (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, not every individual mentioned on Wikipedia should be listed in the disambiguation page. The guidance at WP:DABMENTION states that it should be listed only if it would provide value to the reader. If a non-notable person is mentioned in multiple articles, there will almost always be one that gives more information than others, which would be the page to use. For example, I find it happens a lot with perennial political candidates, and using their most recent campaign is usually best because it will list their previous runs. I don't think the long-standing guidance at WP:DABMENTION should be thrown away due to a poorly worded sentence at WP:NOT. Can you find consensus that established this wording? I find it much more likely that someone slipped that wording in there intending to clarify that disambiguations are not for listing any Tom, Dick, and Harry but perhaps was not aware of when disambiguation pages are allowed to have entries from non-notable subjects. --Tavix(talk) 14:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see it coming down to whether having tens of thousands of dab pages like this would be beneficial to the encyclopedia, and I don't think they would be - they wouldn't be maintained, which means that readers would struggle to find mentions of the Arthur Harley that were added after the dab page was created. In addition, adding mentions like these to current dab pages like John Smith would make them excessively long, and make it difficult for readers to find the notable John Smith that they are searching for. As for targets, that might be the case with most political candidates but it isn't with athletes - for example, an Olympian who competed in two Olympics will rarely have one that gives more information than the others.
The long-standing guidance is at WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which was added eight years ago. The current text at WP:DABMENTION was added two years ago, changing it from a requirement to include mentions after an informal discussion that didn't consider WP:NOT (looking at John Smith from prior to that change, it doesn't appear that requirement was ever followed). BilledMammal (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's definitely an art and not a science. I would presume the bar to adding a non-notable person to John Smith is higher than adding a non-notable person to eg. Arthur Harley. With the former, it can quickly get unwieldy (and that's probably why you don't see too many of them). With the latter, if you're looking for an Arthur Harley non-notable people are your only options, so it's not something to worry about. For the example about an Olympian that competed in two Olympics, I'd recommend using the more recent Olympics and then adding a mention (or footnote if there isn't room) in the article for that Olympic event that they competed in a prior Olympics. That should give the necessary context. Also, since it appears you have done research on the history of the wording, can you supply the diffs please? I'd be interested in reviewing that. --Tavix(talk) 15:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My issue isn't with the individual dab pages for smaller ones like Arthur Harley; its that the ten of thousands of dab pages that would be created if we revoke that aspect of WP:NOTDIRECTORY would be unmaintainable, and make it harder for readers to find an Arthur Harley that is mentioned in an article created next year. In any case, at the moment NOTDIRECTORY is very clear on the topic, and we should follow it until there is a consensus to change it; I have no objection to draftifying this article in the meantime, to make restoring it easier if that consensus does occur.
Disambiguation pages don't require much maintenance, nor would keeping this disambiguation page lead to the creation of tens of thousands of others; they are simply created when an editor would find one useful. If you find a disambiguation page that "does not provide value to the reader", to use the language from WP:DABMENTION, that would be a better angle to make an argument for deletion. Back to the diffs, the WP:DABMENTION change (still allowing them, but changing from "should" to "may") is the result of a discussion. The change to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, however, was boldly added to clarify that disambiguation pages are not yellow pages or white pages and shouldn't list all people with the name. I doubt Jsharpminor had meant to conflict with WP:DABMENTION, but perhaps with this ping they can clarify if available. --Tavix(talk) 20:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The intro to this nomination is confusing. Nominator wants this deleted by WP:NOTDIR and folks here respond justifiably with: "Well, what about WP:DABMENTION?" This article's problem, however, is with WP:NLIST (i.e. not with WP:NOTDIR). A list's notability is impacted by the notability of its members (i.e. notability for lists is inherited, to a degree). When the ONLY members of a disambiguation page point at people who are not notable (right now) for Enwiki entries, that list in its entirety is not sufficiently notable to preserve. DABMENTION regulates that such entries can absolutely be included once the disambiguation is warranted, not that a disambiguation page can be constructed only from dabmentions. A list with only dabmentions fails WP:NLIST. gidonb (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Tavix's argument related to WP:NOTDIR not applying here. With regards to WP:NLIST, I would argue that does not apply as this is not a list page, but is a disambiguation page, which has different scrutiny. TartarTorte 18:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page is a specific kind of list, not a non-list! gidonb (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue special enough to be not subject to WP:NLIST. TartarTorte 15:17, 1 July 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.