Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disambiguations

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Disambiguations. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Disambiguations|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Disambiguations. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disambiguations/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Disambiguations

I Never Heard

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

All three songs mentioned here are the same song, This Is It (Michael Jackson song), and thus the DAB page should instead be a redirect to that page. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 22:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I Wasn't Born Yesterday, the Sa-Fire album that includes the only version of the song with this precise title, which will help someone who searches for it specifically. The blue link for the song at her album already sends the user to This Is It (Michael Jackson song) where we learn that Jackson's version changed the title many years later. At any rate, the nominator is correct about this DAB page being unnecessary. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonso I of Spain

AfDs for this article:

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

The page itself admits "There has not been a monarch known as Alphonso or Alfonso I of Spain", so why does this dab page even exist? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, Disambiguations, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the dab page at Alfonso I. PamD 07:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really address the concern raised in the nomination; it just shifts it elsewhere. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap. If a reader or editor has found it a useful term, we should help them. If someone reading a history of present-day Spain finds a mention of "Alfonso I", this redirect will lead them to the dab page. PamD 05:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above and redirect to Alfonso I. The argument to delete assumes that every reader knows the intricacies of Spanish history, a very complicated field. If somebody read about modern history and saw Alfonsos XII and XIII, why wouldn't they look up to see who the first was, and why should we cut off the answer to that question? To list the possible sources of the river, various kings in the territory of Spain with the name Alfonso I, is more than helpful. Unknown Temptation (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a redirect is made to Alfonso I, would it be appropriate to add Alfonso XII to the "See also" section, since he is noted to be the first "King Alfonso" of unified Spain? I could see that being a point of confusion. Ike Lek (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pogačar

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

Procedural listing of this disambiguation page due to a WP:WRONGFORUM issue. The nominator User:Orangesclub believes this page should be deleted and redirected to Tadej Pogačar as the primary topic. To quote the statement of the nominator: "He has 1000x the page views as the golfer [1] and over 90% of clicks on Pogačar are to him [2]" ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Disambiguations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the way, to forestall arguments that a set index article cannot be deleted per WP:ONEOTHER, this is actually a disambiguation page. Whilst labeled as a set index, a set index article must pass WP:LISTN guidelines, and there is no indication this name does. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote at Talk:Pogačar, we would not be solving any real problems by doing any of this. (Keep) --Joy (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is not a dab page, where primary topic is relevant, but a surname page. We only redirect from surname to person in cases where they are overwhelmingly the most significant person and often referred to by name, like Einstein or Obama. PamD 07:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surname pages must actually be notable as a surname, mentioned in reliable sources. So if it's a surname page, it fails notability criteria anyway and should likely be deleted for that reason regardless. It does seem like the cyclist is the only one specifically referred to by just that name alone. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by a surname page? Is it an article, or a set index? This is the same distinction as the one we were talking about at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konstas. --Joy (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, a set index article, which is treated as a list and must pass WP:LISTN. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As is the case over there, this is a largely bureaucratic distinction here, too, and WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The formatting changes to make this Pogačar set index a disambiguation page are trivial. --Joy (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Surname pages have a strange place on Wikipedia, where they exist as part index and part article, which presents problems when deciding what notability guidelines to apply. Ideally they would have their own notability guideline, but as of now, they need to either pass WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. I think this might pass NLIST, and it just creates more problems to get rid of the surname page if someone ever wants to expand the page with information about the surname itself. That also has its problems, as it risks having the page deleted for failing WP:GNG as it would no longer fit WP:NLIST even though it could be objectively improved by more information about the origins and distribution of the name. Additionally, it seems likely that one of these will get an English translation in the future, which would make it a clearer pass of NLIST: Eva Pogačar [sv], Jasna Pogačar [sl], Roman Pogačar [sl], Jani Pogačar [ja], Janez Zlatoust Pogačar [de]. – Ike Lek (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Bay (disambiguation)

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

None of the geographical locations are mentioned in their target articles Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't found anything for the others, but updated entry for the bay near Darwin Harbour in Australia. If that is the only one with content on Wiki, might be done with a hatnote rather than a dab. older ≠ wiser 12:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added two refs relating to Frances Bay for Darwin Harbour. As for the BC bay, it is more like "just a place name". Possibly there is better prospects for a mention if the target is changed to Francis Point Provincial Park but I have nothing concrete at this point. The North Lake that the Minnesota Frances Bay is part of (between Canada and the US) I can find nothing about, and I thus cannot oppose its removal. CapnZapp (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We can use hat notes in this case rather than have a disambiguation page.4meter4 (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Konstas

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

Only one with a stand alone article. Redirect to Sam Konstas per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, Disambiguations, Greece, and Australia. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD process is not a great place for primary topic discussions, WP:RM should be used instead, because a name index can still remain even if one topic is chosen as primary (maybe there are other entries that just aren't documented there yet).

The other Konstas entry seems to match the guideline on items without standalone articles. It links to a player at an Olympic event, so there is some obvious potential.

The proposed primary topic is a twenty year-old player who seems to have participated at the under-19 level. Why would the average English reader strongly associate this name with this person?

A Google Books search for the term shows me nothing in particular, a lot of ambiguity.

It seems more likely that the average reader wouldn't recognize this term at all. Short-circuiting to one person instead of presenting this short list doesn't seem to be particularly beneficial. (Keep) --Joy (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale is The proposed primary topic is a twenty year-old player who seems to have participated at the under-19 level.. Quick fact check; Sam Konstas has played Test Cricket at the Senior Level. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I skimmed the article and apparently missed that. Maybe this information would be obvious to someone who is more in-universe in this regard, but this is a general encyclopedia, not a secondary source on cricket, or any other sport, or any other field of endeavor. --Joy (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joy I get what you are saying, but I don't think citing google books is a good example as many authors of books won't be notable. I also understand that this is a general encyclopaedia. I still stand by my argument that Sam is the primary topic. He's not Messi, Ronaldo or Michael Jordan type notable. Not even as notable as someone like Sam Kerr. But Sam Konstas before his Test debut got was considered an exciting prospect and arguably got the most attention of anyone on the Boxing Day Test. The other is a water polo player who played at the 1972 Olympics. Basically I would argue he was just considered a part of an Olympic squad. Don't think he was notable for anything besides being there. Sam on the other hand got a lot of attention for playing Un Orthodox shots. It's a good rationale but I am still convinced Sam is the primary topic. Also with regards to books, books on stuff like war are going to have the names of many non notable people in a war. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should be looking for indicators of significance, such as for example some relevant biographer's secondary source about this person. It's hard to expect for this to exist at such a young age, and likewise it's hard to expect that the average reader associates this surname with this person.

How do we normally measure attention in this topic area, and how does that compare to worldwide general measurements of the same? I don't know.

Google Trends for the search terms show two spikes of interest, both of which are past now, and interest is miniscule now.

That website also showed me the topic of Giorgos Konstas, which we don't have documented here, but it's plausible that we could.[3]

I see evidence that in recent times people have looked up the the surname probably in reference to this one person, but no real evidence that this is an actual primary topic according to the guideline. --Joy (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and withdrawn: agree per Joy. I think you should nominate this on WP:RM. ROY is WAR Talk! 12:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to let @Joy and @Royiswariii know that you might want to consider changing your vote as an RM would not work, because if a disambiguation page was created, it would be a case of WP:ONEOTHER in which it redirects to one, and only one other person has the surname. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the entire rationale that I posted. The procedural issue isn't really the most relevant part, even if it's listed first. --Joy (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's still not clear to me what the consensus is here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to failing notability criteria as a surname page. Then it can be redirected as a primary redirect if necessary. The argument put forth by Joy is only relevant if this page is notable, which it clearly is not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm a minor anthroponymy index might not be (obviously) notable according to the WP:N article guideline, but that guideline isn't meant to apply to it because it's not a regular article. WP:5P1 says Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. which is why we include these sorts of indices even if they're not articles. --Joy (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A set index article is a form of list, which falls under list-based notability criteria. Something violating that would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I am unaware of a policy where set index pages are an exception to that rule, and 5P1 can simply mean that infoboxes contain almanac-like or gazette-like information alongside the article itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not really just a form of a list. Have you ever seen WP:Set index#Common selection criteria? The concept of it being a list of notable items has been documented there since 2019 (probably, that's from my quick search, could be older).

The idea of these sorts of set indexes often being very similar to disambiguation pages, hence not necessarily just list articles, has likewise been discussed at length, e.g. at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment/Archive 9#Request for comment in 2024 but we didn't reach a clear conclusion on what to do. --Joy (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seemed to have its fair share of people arguing essentially the same thing that I am - that a set index article requires context and therefore notability (i.e. something like Herman (name)). While it can certainly be a list of names, The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list. In the absence of consensus, it reverts to the status quo, which is that name lists are not a form of disambiguation. It would need people to agree that they are, which didn't happen. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We habitually add name lists into disambiguation pages, this is long documented in the WP:D guideline and there is no missing consensus there. The formatting changes to make this Konstas set index a disambiguation page are trivial. --Joy (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I disagree with the idea that just because we didn't reach a coherent, strictly expressed consensus about the matter of navigation pages in that discussion, that we should just toss all that into the wind. That would truly be dismissive of the volunteer time invested in it, and it would be suspiciously close to WP:Status quo stonewalling. We never had a coherent, strictly expressed consensus about a bunch of things expressed e.g. in the WP:D guideline text (that's the one I've investigated the most so I say this with a bit of experience), and yet we generally recognize most of it as applicable. --Joy (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do we list people in the credits on disambiguation pages and redirect those entries to the corresponding film/game etc. article? No. Logoshimpo (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 PSL season

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

This is based on a discussion that was originally held in the talk page for the 2020 Philippine Super Liga season. The original editor stated that the redirects to the moved articles should be removed though five years later it hasn't been done. While I made them disambiguation pages later on, deleting the original redirects can still be considered.

Based on the original talk page discussion, considering that the Pakistan Super League's first season was in 2016, I will also be nominating the pages listed below. The 2013, 2014, and 2015 redirects won't be nominated for now since those predate the Pakistan Super League.

Update: I found out that there is an article for the 2014 Palau Soccer League, but "2014 PSL season" is just a redirect at the moment.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and Philippines. ROY is WAR Talk! 12:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the respective seasons on Pakistan Super League and add the redirects here note to the top of each article per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That could be the better move here. The 2013, 2014, and 2015 season redirects could stick with the volleyball league since those predate the cricket league. Also, there is no need to change any links that go to the listed pages since I changed all the relevant ones a while back. MarcusAbacus (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At present these pages act as a directional tool and WP:NOPRIMARY indicates that a disambiguation page is possible even when there are only two articles. Is the proposal to add hat notes to replace these pages? Is there an editor committed to doing that?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. These are reasonable disambiguation pages. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".4meter4 (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disambiguations

Contents

Disambiguations

I Never Heard

Alphonso I of Spain

Pogačar

Frances Bay (disambiguation)

Konstas

2021 PSL season

Proposed deletions

Redirects for discussion

See also