Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Vincent (disambiguation): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:55, 6 March 2016

Sam Vincent (disambiguation)

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

This is an unnecessary disambiguation whose use has been superseded by hatnotes. Disambiguation is not needed for Sam Vincent since the voice actor goes by Samuel Vincent, but hatnotes are there for navigation between the two. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I previously said to Tavix: it's not because of a WP:TWODABS that a disambiguation page can't exist. It's not bothering anyone, so why remove it? It might come in handy in future.--Midas02 (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:TWODABS says otherwise: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. And that's exactly what we have here: the basketball player is the primary topic for Sam Vincent, and it could refer to Samuel Vincent, so we use hatnotes. We also have precedent for deleting the disambiguation when that is the case. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Danielson (disambiguation) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luc Thériault (disambiguation). Finally, if another Sam Vincent becomes notable in the future, it doesn't take much effort to recreate the dab. Until then, WP:CRYSTALBALL applies here—we don't know when, or if, that may happen. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unnecessary - hatnotes do the work better. PamD 23:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: and @PamD:. Tavix, that's not what Twodabs states, it merely states it is not required. What's the rational for deleting? It seems like a waste of time. --Midas02 (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 ::Actually, [[WP:TWODABS]] says otherwise: {{tq|If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article.}} And that's exactly what we have here: the basketball player is the primary topic for [[Sam Vincent]], and it ''could'' refer to [[Samuel Vincent]], so we use hatnotes. We also have precedent for deleting the disambiguation when that is the case. See, for example, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Danielson (disambiguation)]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luc Thériault (disambiguation)]]. Finally, if another Sam Vincent becomes notable in the future, it doesn't take much effort to recreate the dab. Until then, [[WP:CRYSTALBALL]] applies here—we don't know when, or if, that may happen. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 20:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 :'''Delete''': unnecessary - hatnotes do the work better. [[User:PamD|<span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 23:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
+::{{Ping|Tavix}} and {{Ping|PamD}}. Tavix, that's not what Twodabs states, it merely states it is not required. What's the rational for deleting? It seems like a waste of time. --[[User:Midas02|Midas02]] ([[User talk:Midas02|talk]]) 16:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)