Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Book

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.

Great Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats

)

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

A dab page wherein all the entries fall afoul of

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have removed the entries that violate PTM and two remain, neither of which are partial title matches; both are often simply referred to as "Great Book". Neelix (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With only two, I suggest a redirect to
    Great books, with possibly a hatnote to the second one (I'm not totally convinced it's not a PTM). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Redirect to
  WP:TWODABS. bd2412 T 20:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, with the addition of {{in title|Great Book}}: All pages with titles containing Great Book, and the large number of titles that a reader might be looking for, (but don't warrant inclusion in the page directly, per WP:PTM), the page serves a valid purpose. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would seem to violate
    WP:PTM, since virtually all of the titles returned would be partial title matches. Furthermore, is there any reason that information couldn't be kept at Great Book (disambiguation)? bd2412 T 14:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Whatever is decided, All pages with titles containing Great Book should not be added. Neelix (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. If a disambiguation page is kept (regardless of title), it should include {{
        intitle}} (or perhaps {{look from}} or perhaps both). These are intended to forestall the addition of partial title matches. older ≠ wiser 20:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Indeed. Check "What links here" for either of those templates. The vast majority of usage is on Disambig pages. It's the tool we've always used to clarify the dividing line of PTM vs DAB entry. It's in the
          MOS:DAB#"See also" section and has been for years. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • I was not aware of that note on MOSDAB. Thank you for pointing it out to me. Neelix (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • To the extent that books exist that contain "Great Book" in the title, these can be catalogued well enough at
              Great books. bd2412 T 16:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • A disambiguation page requires at least two entries not including the primary target (if there is one) and not including the "intitle" and "look from" tools. Either this disambiguation page should remain as is or it should be redirected to
                Great books and The Great Book of Ireland should be linked in a hatnote there; Great Book (disambiguation) should only be created if another non-partial-title-match entry can be found for "Great Book", of which there are none at the moment. Neelix (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
                ]
                • The purpose of
                  WP:TWODABS is to avoid taking people to an unnecessary disambiguation page when their likely target is either the redirect target, or the sole article listed in a hatnote. In that case, a "Foo (disambiguation)" page might not be needed, but it harmless to have. bd2412 T 13:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
                  ]
                  • I disagree; it is harmful to force users to click on two links before getting to their desired target when only one click is required. The link to
                    Great books article. Neelix (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
                    ]