Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish question (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 keep: formal rules for disambig pages are now satisfied after user:Laudak's addition. `'Míkka>t 16:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish question (disambiguation)

Jewish question (disambiguation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The user clearly fails to understand the purpose of disambiguation pages. There is nothing to disambiguate (besides a single article title) `'Míkka>t 00:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion was originally opened at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Jewish question (disambiguation), which is now closed. Further debate should continue here, not there. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep an unconventional disam page, but the items listed have in fact all been widely referred to by this name. DGG (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I challenge you to provide reference that eg. Final solution to the Jewish question has been anytime referred to as "Jewish question". Exactly opposite: it is referred to as "Final Solution" `'Míkka>t 01:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Since I'm in a bit of a snarky mood, I will come close to violating WP:CIVIL by stating that this nominater apparently fails to understand how to nominate a page for deletion. See:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Jewish question (disambiguation). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I will come even closes to violating WP:CIVIL and ask what's your grievance, colleague? In the page you mention I was pointed out that it is not "miscellany", because it is in the Wikipedia:article namespace. I double-checked the policy, and renominated the page here. So please stick to immediate business in question. `'Míkka>t 01:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A link to that page should have been provided for an easier determination of concensus. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• delete. Fails rules set in the wikipedia:Disambiguation page. Only two items from this list may be reasonably called "jewish question". Such cases are handled with the help of "{{for}}" tag. Mukadderat (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The page is all cleaned up, and there's four entries that it may refer to.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without question per Mukadderat. Two legitimate items do not a dab page make. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep; current revision includes more than two items as likely search terms. No need to confuse users. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Two items are false. Someone ignorant keeps restoring them confusing people not familiar with the topic. `'Míkka>t 15:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for a very simple reason: There are three articles, Jewish question, The Jewish Question (essay) and On The Jewish Question that use the phrase "Jewish Question" in the heading so that having a disambiguation page for them is legitimate. I cleaned up the page and removed redirects. IZAK (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • We don't disambiguate "similar" phrases. We keep America (disambiguation) and In America (disambiguation) separate, and so on. `'Míkka>t 15:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Very important page Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It is not what disambig pages are for the information exists elsewhere. `'Míkka>t 15:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep I noticed this page already yesterday and my initial intention was to vote to delete it, because only two items are really disambiguated. But Then I remembered that I have seen other books named "the Jewish Question". Today I found one and added to the disambig page, so not is completely satisfies rules of WP:DAB, which was the major objection of the nominator. While keeping, I would urge participants not to play with the established rules and format of disambiguation pages. Laudak (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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.