Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edge of Seventeen (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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edge of Seventeen (disambiguation)

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

per WP:2DAB- the song (one of the most recognised songs of all time) is the WP:PTOPIC over the film (a little-known comedy film)- gets over three times as many hits . Qxukhgiels (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure how WP:2DAB applies here, as there are clearly three topics being disambiguated: the song (which is indisputably the primary topic and the article at the non-disambiguated title Edge of Seventeen), the film, and the short story by Alexandra Sokoloff (the third entry should probably drop the award mention and use its one-per-line bluelink to target the author, but that's an editorial issue). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:2DAB does apply because the third entry does not have its own page, although Keeping would be acceptable too with the above-mentioned link change. In the best interest of Wikipedia, ~Ngeaup (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the manual of style for disambiguation suggests that entries with valid target links are still considered topics to disambiguate even if the named subject itself is not a stand-alone article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since the primary topic was already established and the dab page just needed formatting properly to reflect that. The other two ambiguous topics could technically be handled via a hatnote but the disambiguation page does no harm. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xezbeth:- yes, but the short story is not notable at all. It may do no harm, but it is not necessary.Qxukhgiels (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:2DAB applies to dabs which 'list only two meanings'; this dab lists three meanings. The third entry meets MOS:DABMENTION, so it is irrelevant whether it has its own article. Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the short story is specifically notable, as winner of an award. It's a useful dab page. Could be done by a hatnote but that would be rather cumbersome, so on balance this useful dab page is better. PamD 12:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (articulate) @ 18:35, 17 January 2015 (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.