Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Eyre (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) Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Eyre (disambiguation)

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

Everything's already listed in Jane Eyre. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DISAMBIG, there is no unique title here. OSU1980 23:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my !vote based on points made by User:JHunterJ OSU1980 09:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No idea what OSU1980 means by no unique title, but there are several topics all of which could be titled "Jane Eyre, and the disambiguation page provides useful navigational assistance to readers looking for one them instead of the novel. Being a concise list of ambiguously title-able topics that happen to also be scattered throughout an article is not a reason to delete. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Naming articles in such a way that each has a unique title. For example, three of the articles dealing with topics ordinarily called "Mercury" are titled Mercury (element), Mercury (planet) and Mercury (mythology). - WP:DISAMBIG Why do we need a disambiguation page for topics that are already displayed within the article itself? OSU1980 01:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That example supports the use of a disambiguation page here, analogous to Mercury (disambiguation). The articles all have unique titles through the use of parenthetical qualifiers, exactly the same way that the examples there do. As to why we need it: because it's a concise list of ambiguously title-able topics, which provides useful navigational assistance to readers looking for one of them instead of the novel. That the topics also happen to be scattered throughout an article is not a reason to delete. Since your reason of "per WP:DISAMBIG" doesn't apply here, the question is "Why do we need to delete it?" -- JHunterJ (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I see where you're coming from now, and I agree. OSU1980 09:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep this is what dab pages are meant to do. Why is this nominated? -- Samir 05:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I consider it unnecessary to maintain two lists, one of adaptations of the novel, the other adaptations that are titled exactly the same as the original. Mercury is not analogous: an element is different from a planet from a Roman god. If there were a couple of articles that weren't so closely related to the book, a dab page would make sense, but there aren't. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's easy enough to address though: leave one of the lists to other editors to maintain. "Mercury" as it is used as an example in the disambiguation guidelines quoted above is analogous: a film is different from a novel from a play, and the example only illustrates the need for qualifiers in the title (which both use). The closeness of the relationship of the different topics is not a criterion. If there are a couple of articles that could have been titled with the same title, the dab page would make sense, and so it does. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disambiguation pages primarily exist to make navigating the encyclopedia easier for viewers. The information may be available somewhere else, but as JHunter has said this list provides a clear and efficient means of locating items which share the same name. Just because they are related does not mean they are not still ambiguous. And, with around 3000 page views a month, it is hard to argue that Jane Eyre (disambiguation) doesn't serve its purpose. France3470 (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page is for things ambiguous with "Jane Eyre". While there is certainly some overlap with a list of works based on the novel, such lists, whether within an article or a stand-alone list, serve a different purpose than simple disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 15:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jane_Eyre#Adaptations. All this information and more is contained there. I'm also not sure how anyone will reach this page unless they actually type Jane Eyre (disambiguation) into the search box, which seems an unlikely search term. No one is suggesting that this should be the primary topic for a search on Jane Eyre are they? Dingo1729 (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users likely get here by typing in 'Jane Eyre', arriving at Jane Eyre and clicking on the hatnote when they realize this article is about the book and they want the film/tv show/ opera etc. Which, I would suggest is how people access non-primary topic dab pages most of the time. Alternatively they don't know what they are looking for and actively seek out the dab page. Redirecting a dab page to an article would be misleading. France3470 (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is exactly what DABs are for; unless you would like to have 13 hatnotes on that article. Let's imagine a scenario here: reader wants Jane Eyre (1973 miniseries) but doesn't know that title. Goes to "Jane Eyre", sees the hatnote. Goes to dab, finds article. Clearly useful. A412 (Talk * C) 00:20, 5 February 2012 (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.