Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winad

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. Making this close based based on the guidelines for disambiguation pages, despite the "delete" and "keep" sides being roughly divided numerically.

Both of the Windows related entries are topics not mentioned in the linked articles, while there seems to be a consensus that the Klingon grammar entry is trivial. The WP:DISAMBIG guideline says a disambiguation page is needed when

"there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead."

That standard is not met here.

The Manual of Style guideline page on disambiguation says at MOS:DABMENTION:

"If the topic is not mentioned in the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic."

This clearly indicates that disambiguation pages should help to guide readers to the specific article where the topic is covered. There is longstanding practice that definitions of abbreviations without discussion are outside Wikipedia's scope, although they may be within the scope of Wiktionary. The guideline is therefore clearly in support of deletion and I cannot see that the "keep" side have made a convincing argument to ignore that. While pointing to the usefulness is somewhat relevant, they fail to address the concern that the entries are outside Wikipedia's scope. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Winad

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

"Winad" is not mentioned at either entry: this page and the linked redirect Winad (disambiguation) should both be deleted. PROD declined by @Voice of Clam: "has previously been discussed at RfD". Pinging @Pppery: who seconded the PROD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, per nom. If this is anything more than occasional and undocumented IT shorthand, that must be demonstrated. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to find more entries and added one. It is an unlikely search term, though not impossible - it may be worth a redirect to Klingon grammar. The initial two entries are invalid though. Boleyn (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find these disambiguation pages extremely helpful - Idk about the klingon example, but the other two seem like jargon you might well find and try to identify on our site - even if the relevant articles don't mention the abbreviation / jargon WINAD. Llajwa (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Llajwa's reasoning.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find such dab pages very helpful for acronyms where the meaning can be very context dependent. Wikipedia:Disambiguations are cheap --DannyS712 (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Llajwa, A. B. and DannyS712, I see what you mean, but there is no mention of 'Winad' at these pages, so it can be frustrating for readers, as dabs are essentially indexes of articles and mentions within articles. This might be useful more for Wiktionary? What do you think? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DABMENTION exists for a reason. We shouldn't be speculating on what people may want without support from it in the articles themselves. Klingon grammar is a triviality not deserving a redirect, compare Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 12#Ouvrîmes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Klingon Wiktionary as a completely obvious AtD. Otherwise Delete per WP:DABMENTION, it doesn't DAB and none of the Keep votes explain how this meets DAB or is useful for navigation in anyway. // Timothy :: talk 10:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.