Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retain (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 no consensus. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retain (disambiguation)

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

No article title is ambiguous with the term. The page lists only partial title matches which are unlikely to be referred to as simply "retain". older ≠ wiser 12:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, RETAIN is ambiguous with the article title, not to mention Retain International and WP:RETAIN, all of which do seem plausible to be referred to as "Retain"; and it is helpful to have the link to Wiktionary for articles that overlink common words. Glenfarclas (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- after removing the partial title matches, only one article ambiguous with the primary topic remains, and it can be handled with a hatnote on RETAIN. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the WP link, plus two entries and several others links validly in see also, I think this could be useful. Boleyn2 (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, the dab is not just about "retain" but also "retained" and "retaining". Many dabs on Wikipedia include variations of the root word and don't require separate dabs for each variation. Second, partial matches are fine if it describes a kind of thing the dab is about--in this case, "retain" (which is the perfect passive particle of retention), "retained" (retained firefighter), and "retaining" (like retaining wall). —Eekerz ^(t) 01:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any Wikipedia articles ambiguous with "retained" or "retaining" though, just partial title matches. No, partial title matches are not fine even when they describe a kind of thing or whatever else. We've already been through this elsewhere, but for other editors, see also:
-- JHunterJ (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And why aren't partial title matches acceptable when they describe the root term? Is not water retention a type of retention? Is not a retaining wall a type of object that retains something (i.e. dirt)? What is the big deal? While I can understand not including a link to something like "The Thing that emerged from the retaining wall" (a fictitious made-up name of some bad b-movie--or something), a link to "retaining wall" is most definitely appropriate. —Eekerz ^(t) 13:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's ambiguous with the ambiguous title, the entry is acceptable. Disambiguation pages are not list articles. Lists of types of retention, for example, would be a separate page, a list article. Please see the list of AfDs above for an explanation of the deal (not a big deal, but a deal). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these terms are ambiguous with the title. Retained firefighters can be referred to as just "retained". A retaining wall is a type of wall that retains something and, hence, could even be included on retainer. It's silly to create a list of retention types when the dab page can handle them since it's just a glorified list anyway and more logical to put retention types there since it's all just a matter of wording. I could create redirects to the many ways of labeling a term: for wall (disambiguation) ("wall (retaining)", "retention wall", and "wall of retention"), "retention (wall)" for retention, "retainer (wall)" for retainer, etc... —Eekerz ^(t) 20:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designated and its result. Designated is to designated hitter as retained is to retained firefighters. WP:POINTy redirect creations would probably end up being deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] and [2] for "retained firefighters" referred to as just "retained" (or "retained crews")--even the fire station can be referred to as a "retained fire station"[3]. —Eekerz ^(t) 04:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you're going to be that restrictive about dab pages, then prepare to clean up 99% of them because they contain partial title matches. Form is a good example (and, I see from this edit you didn't seem to mind all the partial text matches, incidentally...). Good luck getting away with removing all of those kinds of forms! Otherwise they're just gonna get thrown into the "see also" section, cluttering it up--with sections, even... So it just makes sense to allow partial title matches in dabs that directly refer to a kind/type of whatever the dab is about. —Eekerz ^(t) 09:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are cleaning up other dabs. Some partial title matches are also ambiguous. But see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you didn't clean up Breaking either, despite having a history with it and it containing many links to articles with "breaking" in their names. What's with the double standard? —Eekerz ^(t) 21:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and feel free to tag other pages for cleanup or discussion as needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as jhunter says, and ill say here, the only WP articles called "retain" can get by with a hatnote on the top of each page. NB one of the articles is barely an article anyway. all the rest of the content is overambitious attempts to help readers find all uses of this or related words on WP. thats really the job of the reader, to make broad links in their searches for knowledge. just imagine the precedent set: a disambig page for EVERY word in the language, with links to searches for each appearance of the word in titles. nothing about the word "retain" deserves special treatment, so "ignore all rules" wont apply, unless someone can give a reason for abandoning very sensible guidelines for disambig pages.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep & CLOSE. The page already lists 3 items of contention: RETAIN (caps), "Retain International" and WP:RETAIN. Plus, there is the obvious need for new article "Retain (law)" as meaning to transfer funds to bind a lawyer to a retainer as counsel, which conflicts with the police seizing all money of a suspect. Anyway, the obsession to delete every budding dab-page is a waste of time, and hinders writers from just checking the dab-page and writing the next related article. Should Wikipedia have a dab-page for EVERY word? ...well it just about does already: that ship sailed a long time ago, with now over 121,000 dab-pages. There is even a "Google (disambiguation)" listing the company, the search-engine name, a misspelling of "googol" and Barney Google, etc. Please stop these frivolous AfD debates on notable subjects and multi-use titles. Frivilous AfDs keep admins from performing valuable tasks, and pretend to be discussing merge or hat-note updates, without even contacting the authors of the related articles, such as "RETAIN" which would need a hat-note for "Retain International" and such. This debate needs to be CLOSED and moved into the talk-pages of related articles, as a discussion about changing their hat-notes. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The self-ref is properly on the base name, leaving only the link to the primary topic and the link to Retain International. Disambiguation pages do not disambiguate possible future Wikipedia articles. If you or another editor would like to create the "Retain (law)" stub, this disambiguation page could then be speedily kept. Otherwise, it can be speedily re-created if the article is created in the future. That ship has not yet sailed, and these frivolous disambiguation pages, not the AfDs, are the problem. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, why didn't you clean up Form and Breaking again? Many partial title matches there... Wikipedia:DAB#Partial title matches is contradictory. Baltimore Zoo can still be referred to as just "Zoo" (or "The Zoo") in and around the Baltimore area (and beyond if the context is Baltimore). Who decides what distance around a place is relevant to include on a dab? And how is that "distance" defined in non-physical locations? How obscure is obscure for inclusion on a dab when referring to a plant/animal species or small unincorporated towns? Seems quite petty to me... —Eekerz ^(t) 20:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have noticed that a dab page such as Form or Breaking needs to be cleaned up, you can tag it with {{disambig-cleanup}}. Whether you do that or not, though, that other pages need to be cleaned up isn't relevant to this discussion. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS again. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing my point. The fact that you purposefully passed up removing partial title matches from dabs shows you don't believe that policy to be correct. So, why are you trying to get retain (disambiguation) deleted then? —Eekerz ^(t) 02:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With only two ambiguous articles, this can be addressed in a hatnote. older ≠ wiser 14:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you voting again when you're the one who created this AfD? —Eekerz ^(t) 20:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it wasn't intentional. I actually did forget that I had nominated this. I'll blame the oversight on the prescription cough syrup I'm on. older ≠ wiser 13:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my count, this is your first !vote. Nominators are allowed to !vote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep Firstly, the nominator voted twice to try and boost the delete count. Secondly, there are a number of disambiguation pages that house a couple of entries ala Beef Wellington (disambiguation) and Amy Hennig (disambiguation) which were both created by me. WP:OTHERCRAP. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 10:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to try assuming good faith. And you do realize that WP:OTHERCRAP is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, right? older ≠ wiser 13:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: the nominator !voted once. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.