Endorse: I'm not sure I understand the issue here. The page was created as a redirect (to Joseph Beuys), despite the confusing "(disambiguation)" in its title. Joseph Beuys is an article about the man, not a disambiguation page. It includes a hatnote to Beuys (film), but that doesn't make it a DAB. You could argue that Beuys (disambiguation) should have been speedied under R3 rather than under G14, but that's hardly worth arguing over. Owen×☎16:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (by deleting admin): G14 permits deletion of "A redirect that ends in '(disambiguation)' but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function(such as set index articles or lists)." Paradoctor relies on the phrase in italics, saying that Joseph Beuys performs a "disambiguation-like function" simply because it contains a hatnote linking to an article about a film. However, they ignore the parenthetical -- Joseph Beuys is plainly not a set index article or list, or even remotely similar to either of those. If merely having a hatnote were enough to justify a "(disambiguation)" redirect, then the majority of substantive Wikipedia articles would require such redirects. And once nearly every article has a "(disambiguation)" redirect pointing to it, I'd suggest that such redirects would have little to no value. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think G14 does apply since Joseph Beuys does not satisfy this criteria : A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists). While a hatnote does provide disambiguation, the page itself does not function as a disambiguation page (such as set index article or list). Such redirects with {{R to disambiguation}} are expressly intended for use in links from other articles that need to refer to the disambiguation page. Using this redirect in such a context to identify an intentional disambiguation would be misleading if not outright incorrect. older ≠ wiser16:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While a hatnote does provide disambiguation, the page itself does not function as a disambiguation page
Joseph Beuys doesn't look like a set index article or a list to me, either, and it never has. The entire purpose of ... (disambiguation) redirects is when there is no primary topic for a term and so links to that term normally need to be disambiguated, but there's occasional need to deliberately link to the disambiguation page (such as in a see also section in another disambig). Endorse. —Cryptic19:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The entirety of set index and list articles perform a disambiguation like function whereas the article on Joseph Beuys performs an information article function that has a hat note at the top. -- Whpq (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Send to AfD. Slap User talk:R'n'B for not having done so immediately on challenge at his talk page. Speedy deletion is for where deletion is Uncontestable. Someone wants to contest it. Either the deletion was wrong, or someone needs a discussion to have stuff explained. This discussion belongs best at AfD, and does not belong at DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, you would be right and I would support XfD for a challenged speedy. But there's simply no value to the not-disambiguation redirection in the first place, so there's really nothing to RfD about: a page ending in (disambiguation) which neither is a disambiguation nor redirects to a disambiguation page isn't a valid page. Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The value lies in learning, by the appellant, by others in seeing how the documentation of policy can be improved. If someone wants a discussion, within reason, let them have it. At AfD the discussion focus would be on the facts of the disambiguation page. Here, the focus is on whether the deleting admin did the right thing, which misses the problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse G14 seems to clearly apply based on all of the facts. There's no reason to send this to further discussion when this was a technical deletion, properly performed. SportingFlyerT·C09:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Clearly correct application of G14 clause 3. Slapping a hatnote on a page does not make it a disambiguaton page. Jclemens (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It really was. You can see from the creation log that it was created as one; the only other edit made to it was to correct the typo in its target. —Cryptic10:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought someone might yell WP:PTM at you. One needs to know about WP:PTM to understand why the reviewer Declined (not Rejected, implying some editing could improve it!) with the reason being WP:ONEOTHER. Oh the jargon! SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The draft was declined by an AFC reviewer, and the reason seems correct. That is even more reason why a redirect posing as a disambiguation page is not a disambiguation page, because, as the reviewer pointed out, we don't need a real disambiguation page, let alone a fake one. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the arguments put forward by the participants to deletion discussion do not conform to the Wikipedia guidelines. The main argument was that if the article was not notable it would not have so many sources -I think the issue is not the quantity of sources but the engagement with the subject. The article has many sources that simply reproduce each other, without going deeper.. Also, I pointed out that the sources that do exist do not refer to the party but to its leader, which is not the same thing.
Endorse closure, but allow immediate renomination. While superficially unanimous, two of the Keep views relied on weak arguments, which isn't surprising considering their limited experience on the project. Discounting those two would leave us without a quorum. A fresh AfD will hopefully attract better participation. Owen×☎14:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The right closure. Even if I agreed that some of the !votes should be ignored (and I do not), that would be an AFD round 2 argument rather than a DRV argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
