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.
Disambiguation page which just exists to dab a US organization from two international sibling organizations which are already listed and linked to in the "Outside of the United States" section of the US organization's article anyway — and after dabbing those three things, this then pivots into listing several other organizations which have similar mandates but aren't named this, and that's not what a dab page is for. Which means that this isn't a necessary dab page: the items that do need to be dabbed are already linked in the main article as it is, and the rest of them don't belong on this dab page at all because they aren't dab entries for this title. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This might seem like a weird solution, but I think the best hatnote would be one like: ((other uses|PFLAG#Other organizations)). --Tavix(talk) 15:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Otherwise, you can't even get to PFLAG Canada without going to the "Outside the US" section buried in the article on the US-based organization. But the Canadian organization dates from the 1970s and has nothing to do with the American organization! A similar argument applies to the UK organization with the near-identical title FFLAG ("Family and Friends..." rather than "Parents and Friends..."). Ditto PFLAG China. This will otherwise make for a rather glaring example of US-centrism in WP: type a search term (pflag); find a US organization; find other independent national organizations listed in the US-based article under "Outside the US" and which have independent WP articles, provided you read through the text on the US organization first... Ross Fraser (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FFLAG in the UK has no bearing on the appropriateness or lack thereof of a disambiguation page for PFLAG. The purpose of a dab page on Wikipedia is to point readers to the correct topic among things which have the same name, and only the same name — it is not to provide an extended list of things with similar mandates to PFLAG but different names. So the appropriateness of this page begins and ends with the Canadian and Chinese groups alone, and does not encompass FFLAG or COLAGE or Tehila at all — nobody is ever going to be looking for FFLAG or COLAGE or Tehila by typing "PFLAG" into the search bar, so they're not dab entries for the title "PFLAG". And if you're really that concerned about a reader having to scroll all the way through the US group's article to find links to PFLAG Canada and PFLAG China, we also have the option of just putting a direct "For the Canadian group, see PFLAG Canada. For the Chinese group, see PFLAG China." hatnote at the top of the PFLAG page instead of a link to a standalone dab page — the dab page also unnecessarily complicates getting to the Canadian and Chinese groups, because it turns that into a two-click process where a direct hatnote just requires one. Bearcat (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: FFLAG. There are many examples of disambiguation pages that link to other pages via names or terms that aren't in the title of the disambiguation page. E.g.: the science disambiguation page "Ecology" links to "The Ecologist" as well as (under "see also") to "Environmentalism". These pages exist to help the reader, so inclusion of FFLAG in the disambiguation page seems reasonable to me, though I agree that it should be listed in the "See also" section. Agreed that a hatnote would be a 1-click solution and while I wouldn't object to a hatnote uniformly applied to all three articles with PFLAG in the title, there are other national organizations called PFLAG that don't yet have a WP page (e.g.: Australia https://www.pflagaustralia.org.au/) so this hatnote might soon grow back into a disambiguation page. There is even a PFLAG UK (http://www.pflag.co.uk) also not associated with PFLAG in the U.S. and apparently also not associated with FFLAG. If any of them become notable enough to have a WP article (the Australian organization is very active), that's going to become quite the hatnote. Ross Fraser (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per PTOPIC "Is there a primary topic?" and with over ten times more traffic going to the US group than to any other, we have to accept that PFLAG in the US is the primary topic. So, with two other articles existing, and more potential articles, this disambig page is the standard way we handle it - not a multi-way hatnote, still less by a list buried way down in the primary article. The disambig page does need editing to cut out detail and remove articles with unrelated titles. And could the hatnote on PFLAG, instead of the standard text For other uses see..., say For PFLAG groups outside the US, see...: Noyster (talk), 21:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: When you trim the dab page of all which shouldn't be in a dab page you're left with the Canada and China links only. So Delete and add hatnote ((about|the US organization|the organization in Canada|PFLAG Canada|the organization in China|PFLAG China)). If people think that hatnote's too long, or a fourth PFLAG topic gets a WP article, then have a dab page, but stripped down to the bare WP:MOSDAB-compliant version. PamD 13:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a useful navigational page. In fact, I think PFLAG should redirect there, as redirecting PFLAG to the American PFLAG organization is a biased choice, since the Canadian organization is independent from the US one. In addition, some redudancy in navigational tools in Wikipedia is fine as Wikipedia is not paper. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2016 (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.