Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucinda Williams (disambiguation)

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. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucinda Williams (disambiguation)

Contested prod. I see no reason to disambiguate between the singer and their album. I already put a hatnote on the singer's page, pointing to the athlete. Compare Tracy Byrd, which has a hatnote pointing to the boxer of the same name, but no dab for Byrd's album. Doug Stone and Clay Walker also use hatnotes in a same fashion, with no dab for each singer's self-titled albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Delete. I agree this would be much better being dealt with by hat notes given that a hat note from singer to albulm would seem sensible regardless of a whether we have a disambiguation page. With that in mind, IMO, it comes down to how best to deal with the athlete and I see no reason why this can't be dealt with by an extra hat note, especially as the singer seems much more notable than the athlete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmuk (talk • contribs)

I still think hat notes is the better way of doing this but given the arguements below which suggest other pages do it differently I'm changing my delete to a weak delete. Dpmuk (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One hatnote is preferable to two if one can accomplish the same task. Articles about singers/bands who have produced self-titled albums should make this distinction by way of disambiguation. The fact that the Tracy Byrd article does not adhere to this standard does not negate the value of this aspect of disambiguation. Even if it was determined that these two secondary entries are not sufficient to constitute a disambiguation page (even though I believe them to be sufficient), standard practice would be to redirect the disambiguation page to the primary article so that if another "Lucinda Williams" was eventually given an article and a user attempted to recreate this disambiguation page, he or she would not question the recreation out of a fear that a consensus had already been reached stating that the disambiguation page should not exist. Neelix (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to mention two standards there (a. self title albulms should have a disambiguation page and b. the disambiguation page should be redirected to the primary page) without mentioning any specific policy, documetation, consensus etc. Is there an actual wikipedia policy or similar or is this just your take on usual wikipedia practice. If there is a policy, or even just a prior consensus, you can point me to I'd be willing to change my vote. Dpmuk (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the first standard that you mention, self-titled albums do not necessarily require disambiguation pages; they simply require disambiguation. A simple distinguishing hatnote would suffice in many cases, but where other entries are also possible (as in this case), a single link to a disambiguation page is generally preferable to multiple distinguishing hatnotes. The guidelines on Wikipedia:Hatnote tend to emphasize the importance of limiting the space taken up by hatnotes while making sure that they sufficiently cover the articles requiring disambiguation. Self-titled albums are (in my opinion) covered by the purpose of disambiguation expressed on Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic." For example, The Beatles (disambiguation) lists The Beatles' self-titled album. Because of this first standard, I do not believe the second to even come into play. I mention it only because I believe that this discussion should not be a deletion discussion but simply a discussion on the disambiguation talk page. A lot of the work I do on Wikipedia deals with disambiguation pages. I don't know of any official policy to redirect disambiguation pages to their primary articles when not in use, but I come across examples of them very frequently. Constantine (disambiguation), for example, redirected to Constantine until I re-established it. Neelix (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete We don't need a disambiguation if the hatnote has already done its job. This is yet another example of a disambiguation that isn't needed. Tavix (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hatnote is sufficient. ff m 22:11, 8 September 2008 (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.