This was an invalid WP:G14, per disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page. At the time of deletion, there were three extant pages: (1) Gilbert Affleck, (2) the baronets which are listed at Affleck baronets, and (3) the "Lt-Col of the Risbridge Battalion", which is discussed at Suffolk Militia. UtherSRG seems to think the other entries are "further information pages", but they are valid entries per WP:DABRL and/or WP:DABMENTION. Furthermore, this was at AfD at the time of deletion, and multiple editors opined to keep the page. This would make deletion controversial, in violation of the advice at WP:CSD that administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages except in the most obvious cases. --Tavix(talk) 19:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: I came to DRV to add this and the next entry, then found it had already been done. This was a valid and useful dab page, was nominated for AfD, and the AfD was then closed as G14 (within 8 hours) despite "keep" votes, although WP:CSD says Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. Clearly this was not an obvious candidate for G14 or any other speedy deletion. I asked the deleting editor to reverse the close of the AfD, but they have not done so. PamD 19:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Overturn G14 and reopen AFD largely per PamD. It disambiguates to multiple extant targets, thereby making it an invalid G14. UtherSRG also deleted this page within hours of being pinged in the discussion as an admin who G14 deleted another page, suggesting this out-of-process deletion was the result of (likely unintentional) WP:CANVASSing. FrankAnchor 01:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn per nom. An understandable, but wrong, reading of G14.—Alalch E. 17:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn per Alalch E. Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn and list at XfD . Most speedies, if contested by an editor in good standing, should be undeleted and sent to XfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Speedy deleting something currently being discussed at AfD and which has good-faith recommendations for anything other than "delete" is going to be controversial in almost all cases. Speedy deletion is explicitly not to be used in cases that are (or are likely to be) controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Speedy Delete and Relist - Speedy deletion should be objective and uncontestable. A closer should not close an XFD with a speedy deletion if at least one editor has !voted to Keep in a way that disagrees with the speedy deletion. For instance, if an article is nominated for deletion because of questions about notability, any Keep votes are inconsistent with A1, A3, or A7. There had been at least one Keep, which was a statement that it was a valid endorsement. Restore the AFD and the article and relist the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This was an invalid WP:G14, per disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page. At the time of deletion, there were five extant pages: (1) Thomas Ainsworth, (2) the baronet(s) listed at Ainsworth baronets, (3) a fictional reverend discussed at Gentleman Jack (TV series), (4) a fictional character played by Ron Silver, and (5) a fictional dishonest mayor in The Raiders (1952 film). UtherSRG seems to think the other entries are "further information pages", but they are valid entries per WP:DABRL and/or WP:DABMENTION. Furthermore, this was at AfD at the time of deletion, and multiple editors opined to keep the page. This would make deletion controversial, in violation of the advice at WP:CSD that administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages except in the most obvious cases. --Tavix(talk) 19:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: I came to DRV to add this and the previous entry, then found it had already been done. This was a valid and useful dab page, was nominated for AfD, and the AfD was then closed as G14 (within 8 hours) despite "keep" votes, although WP:CSD says Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. Clearly this was not an obvious candidate for G14 or any other speedy deletion. I asked the deleting editor to reverse the close of the AfD, but they have not done so. PamD 19:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Overturn G14 and reopen AFD largely per PamD. It disambiguates to multiple extant targets, thereby making it an invalid G14. UtherSRG also G14 deleted this page within hours of being pinged in the discussion as an admin who G14 deleted another page, suggesting this out-of-process deletion was the result of (likely unintentional) WP:CANVASSing. FrankAnchor 01:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn per nom. An understandable, but wrong, reading of G14.—Alalch E. 17:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is this an understandble reading of G14? It clearly doesn't meet the letter or spirit of either the specific criterion or the general requirements for speedy deletion? Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn per Alalch E. Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Speedy deleting something currently being discussed at AfD and which has good-faith recommendations for anything other than "delete" is going to be controversial in almost all cases. Speedy deletion is explicitly not to be used in cases that are (or are likely to be) controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Speedy Delete and Relist - Speedy deletion should be objective and uncontestable. A closer should not close an XFD with a speedy deletion if at least one editor has !voted to Keep in a way that disagrees with the speedy deletion. For instance, if an article is nominated for deletion because of questions about notability, any Keep votes are inconsistent with A1, A3, or A7. There had been at least one Keep, which was a statement that it was a valid endorsement. Restore the AFD and the article and relist the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This was an invalid WP:G14, per disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page. At the time of deletion, there were three extant pages: (1) Longwan, Wenzhou, (2) a town administered by Qianjiang, Hubei, (3) a township administered by Xiong County. UtherSRG seems to think the other entries are "further information pages", but they are valid entries per WP:DABRL and/or WP:DABMENTION. --Tavix(talk) 19:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The actual entries linked on the disambiguation page were Longwan District, Longwan, Qianjiang, Hubei and Longwan Township, Xiong County, and only one of those exists. The latter two entries did have links to pages which do exist, but those should not have been there per MOS:DABONE, and in any case since the settlements concerned are just included as list entries. Hut 8.5 19:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing WP:G14 concerns is whether the pages being disambiguated are extant. Longwan, Wenzhou; Qianjiang, Hubei; and Xiong County are extant. Other arguments on the validity of the entries can and should be made at the AfD. --Tavix(talk) 20:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pages being disambiguated are the bluelinks, because they guide readers to where we have information on the topic. That there are also redlinks is irrelevant for G14 purposes, it's simply a formatting choice described at WP:DABRL. If the bluelinks didn't exist, then there wouldn't be anywhere to navigate to and then there would not be an extant page. --Tavix(talk) 20:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent (which I'm too lazy to go dig out, but I can if it turns out to be truly necessary) is that WP:DABMENTION is enough to stave off a G14. This was initially surprising to me too. —Cryptic 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why you found that surprising? If WP:DABMENTION was not enough to stave off a G14, then valid disambiguation pages would be eligible to be speedy deleted. Surely that would not be the intent? --Tavix(talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as someone who hardly ever works with dabs, and hadn't followed any deletion discussions for dabs at the time what eventually became G14 was first added to G6, my initial reading of G14 was the same as Hut 8.5's: "but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page" and similar wording seems to say that there has to be a bluelink to a page that could've been at the dab's title if not for the title's other meanings. Xiong County, for example, has never been in any danger of being moved to Longwan. —Cryptic 01:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn. There were multiple entries, and two of the three entries being DABMENTIONs doesn't matter. Red links especially don't matter, and in some circumstances it's even possible for a dabmention entry to also contain the red link, per WP:PRIMARYRED, and MOS:DABONE does not conflict with that, as DABONE is about navigable links. Invalid G14.—Alalch E. 15:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn per Alalch E. Also noting that nothing in the MOS is relevant in a deletion discussion: MOS determines how we normally present information, not what we keep or delete. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per all above. Thryduulf (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This was an invalid WP:G14, per disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page. At the time of deletion, there were five extant pages: (1) Instagram, (2) cooking equipment described at History of Burger King, (3) a former name of the band Alison's Halo, (4) a song for Armenia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2018, (5) a 2019 single by Bizzey. UtherSRG seems to think the other entries are "further information pages", but they are valid entries per WP:DABRL and/or WP:DABMENTION. Furthermore, this was at AfD at the time of deletion, and multiple editors opined to keep the page. This would make deletion controversial, in violation of the advice at WP:CSD that administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages except in the most obvious cases. Finally, UtherSRG opined to delete at the AfD, making them WP:INVOLVED in the matter. --Tavix(talk) 19:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As with the other dabs listed today, this didn't qualify for speedy deletion. We should probably make that clear in the text of WP:G14 so admins who don't often work with dabs don't get misled like this. —Cryptic 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Overturn G14 and reopen AFD It disambiguates to multiple extant targets, thereby making it an invalid G14. FrankAnchor 01:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cryptic that changes to the wording of G14 would be really helpful. MOS:DABMENTION entries do link to different extant pages, but those pages aren't necessarily standalone articles on the topic, just articles where you can find some information on the eprson/thing you are looking for. I've worked on disambiguation for years, but I appreciate that it's niche and that not many people will be totally familiar with the guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it really needs clarification in WP:G14. The red link in the entry of MOS:DABMENTION could generally be created as a redirect to the blue link (the related topic), which suffices one extant Wikipedia page although it's a redirect rather than an article. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn per nom. An understandable, but wrong, reading of G14.—Alalch E. 17:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn per Alalch E. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Speedy deleting something currently being discussed at AfD and which has good-faith recommendations for anything other than "delete" is going to be controversial in almost all cases. Speedy deletion is explicitly not to be used in cases that are (or are likely to be) controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Speedy Delete and Relist - Speedy deletion should be objective and uncontestable. A closer should not close an XFD with a speedy deletion if at least one editor has !voted to Keep in a way that disagrees with the speedy deletion. For instance, if an article is nominated for deletion because of questions about notability, any Keep votes are inconsistent with A1, A3, or A7. There had been at least one Keep, which was a statement that it was a valid endorsement. Restore the AFD and the article and relist the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
