Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (3rd nomination)

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 delete. There is a strong consensus that this is not actually a disambiguation per our guidelines and that currently no disambiguation page is needed for Wal-Mart. I was somewhat inclined to go with

Wal-Mart (disambiguation)

Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 1. Neutral. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not a disambiguation page, no conflict over the title exists. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I don't see how this isn't a disambiguation page. It seems a hatnote to this over Walmart hurts nothing. --CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 17:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per seresin.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 18:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - disambiguation pages should be for resolving conflicts between articles with similar names. As a "List of Wal-Mart articles", this might make sense, but even that's questionable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are for disambiguating articles with the same title, not listing related topics that have the same words in their titles. So this page should be deleted. Concerns in the AfD about where to list this content can be discussed elsewhere, but a disambiguation page is not how to do it. ÷seresin 18:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a dab, would be best handled in Category:Wal-Mart. youngamerican (wtf?) 18:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and refactor to
  WP:CLN a category is not sufficient, and is best supplemented by a list.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep. Disambig pages are cheap, and I don't think this page violates the intent of
  WP:DAB. Would not be opposed to renaming to List of Wal-Mart articles, but don't really see a need for that either. — Satori Son 18:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If you actually read the text on the page, it's second line states: "Wal-Mart or Walmart may also refer to:", which is followed by the bulleted links. Problem is, if you think of it, the term "Wal-Mart" or "Walmart" is used to refer specifically to the company. One doesn't use those terms to refer specifically to the "Wal-Mart Camel" or the "Wal-Mart Bill" or the documentary. So there's no need whatsoever for this DAB page. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wal-mart the reatil chain and Wal-mart (neologism) are two topics with the same name. The dab also disambiguates other topics with similar names. I don't see the problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this isn't a dab page, it's a list of related articles. (I can't bloody believe we kept Walmarting, to boot, considering it looks rather OR-ish to me.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:DAB guidelines, which allow for disambig pages when two or more articles have identical or similar titles. The primary example given is to disambiguate Mercury (element) and Mercury (planet), among others. Given this argument, you could say that both of these titles should be on a page pertaining to Mercury (mythology) instead because both the element and the planet draw their names from Mercury (mythology). Likewise, many other things called "Wal-Mart" or "Walmart" draw their name from the store and its cultural meaning. Tatterfly (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Only two of the articles have similar titles. Should be handled with headnotes. Drawn Some (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Belongs in a category, maybe See also, but not DAB. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since the items shown on the page are distinct enough from the Wal-Mart store that they would not belong on a page having to do with Wal-Mart. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates does not forbid there to be lists, disambiguation pages, and navigational templates all for the same title or topic. This page also should not be renamed to "List of Wal-Mart articles." This is not standard Wikipedia convention. That would be like renaming Honolulu (disambiguation) to List of Honolulu articles because they supposedly all have something to do with Honolulu. Sebwite (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is inappropriate per
  WP:DAB or else deliberately choose to ignore the consensus expressed there. Drawn Some (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • So everyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the guideline is either stupid or deliberately
    disruptive? I’d like to think we could respectfully disagree on this subject without engaging in ad hominem attacks. — Satori Son 13:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

No, I disagree with you that the former are stupid, they probably haven't bothered to read it, I'm not really interpreting it, it's pretty clear cut. As far as whether or not people deliberately ignoring the consensus expressed there are being disruptive, I agree with you that they are. Whether it is deliberate or not as you suggest I wouldn't speculate on because of AGF. Drawn Some (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to speculate whether it is deliberate or not, you probably shouldn't use the word "deliberately". — Satori Son 13:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant what I said. One possibility is that they are deliberately ignoring consensus but I am not willing to go as far as you are and say that they are deliberately being disruptive, that could be an unintended consequence of deliberately ignoring consensus. Drawn Some (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category would be awkward, the best solution is to keep the disambig page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Drawn Some.
  talk) 08:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete It's not disambiguating among things that are named "Wal-Mart" but things that have "Wal-Mart" in the title. Why not throw "Wal-Mart Flowers" by Stephen Cochran or "Wal-Mart Parking Lot" by Chris Cagle up there while you're at it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ⁽Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets
  Wal-Mart bill (which redirects to Fair Share Health Care Act). There are some situations where you do place something containing a term in part of its title on a disambiguation page. For example, Washington College gets placed on Washington (disambiguation), and Ford Explorer gets placed on Explorer (disambiguation). This is totally appropriate to do. Shaliya waya (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yeah, those don't meet the guideline for inclusion on the disambig page, either, please review

WP:DAB, you're saying it meets that guideline when it clearly doesn't. Drawn Some (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

There are 46 articles that should be included in a list (rather than a dab page). See Category:Wal-Mart and its sub-pages.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nomination.Capitalismojo (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that I have not expressed an opinion, so it's not

  per nom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  yes, perhaps it was one of the nominations from the other two times it has been nominated. My mistake To expand my thoughts: This looks relatively clear to me as a candidate. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Might be better named (moved to) "Walmart (disambiguation)". Two ambiguous redirects and an ambiguous documentary (which I added) make it a disambiguation page. I moved the other partial matches to a new "See also" section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete I thought we resolved this shiat a long time ago. This is NOT a Disambiguation page, the purpose of which should be to separate similarly named but unrelated topics/articles. All items on the page relate to Wal-Mart itself, and as such, should be linked to from the
  WP:NPOV, by trying to connect so very obscure things with Wal-Mart. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I've added the {{

  Wal-Mart article itself, so that their pros and cons can be sufficiently covered. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That tag is just silly on a disambiguation page, whether or not the disambiguation page needs to be deleted. If you want to keep it there, please raise your concerns on Talk:Wal-Mart (disambiguation) -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It should be noted that five of the links on the page are, in fact, redirects themselves:
  Wal-Mart article itself. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Redirects are perfectly valid disambiguation page entries and often need disambiguating. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete if wal-mart related articles need further organization a disambig page is not a way to accomplish that. Jon513 (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment not all of these are Wal-Mart articles per say. Tatterfly (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the content listed doesn't actually need to be disambiguated as aside from Walmart itself, the other items aren't known as walmart but merely contain walmart as a string within the full name. -- Whpq (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment many things are disambiguated without parenthesis, but with the ambiguous term paired with one or more other words. For example, swimming stroke and stroke play are various meanings of the word stroke. Yet you do need a disambiguation page for these things. Tatterfly (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - That things without parentheses are included in disambigutation pages is a given. It's the reason they are included which is crucial. That the thing happens to have a fragment of the word in its title is not sufficient for it to be included for disambiguation. It is the fact that it is actually known that name.
    Walmart First Tee Open at Pebble Beach isn't referred to as "Walmart". Walmart is merely a word that is included in the full title of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2009 (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.