Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidney (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) Winged Blades ^Godric 04:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kidney (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Was erroneously listed at MFD. Rationale was

“

All of these entries are partial title matches. None could possibly be mistaken for the term "kidney", and no one looking for "Kidney pie" types in "Kidney" and expects to land on a pie page. Delete per WP:PTM

”

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but edit: the man with the surname, the Chinese medicine term, and the island are dab-page-worthy, so too much for a simple hatnote. PamD 08:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found another name-bearer. PamD 08:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And have replaced the PTMs by SAs. PamD 08:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added more entries Boleyn (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• From WP:PTM, since this didn't come out as a Wikilink during the [intended] nomination for deletion, with emphasis added: "To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their first or last name only if they are reasonably well known by it. We reasonably expect to see Abraham Lincoln at Lincoln (disambiguation), but very few sources would refer to the waltz composer Harry J. Lincoln by an unqualified "Lincoln", so he is only listed at the Lincoln (surname) anthroponymy article." Six of the 12 articles on the current page are for people whose last name is "Kidney", most of those non-notable people, and none of them is known as "Kidney" the way that Mr. Lincoln is routinely known as "Lincoln." The point here isn't to add more names or entries to the list, the point is to not HAVE a list if the things on it are not routinely referred to as the word or words in the article namespace. Is "Kidney Island" routinely called "Kidney"? If not, then it doesn't belong on this list. The Kidney (food) Wikilink just goes to a subsection of the existing article Kidney, which is kind of pointless. So between the non-notable entries which have no associated Wikipedia article, the various people and places that are almost certainly not known as "Kidney", and the redundant redirect, the only entry which remains at all viable here is the one for Kidney (Chinese medicine), and a single entry doesn't warrant an entire disambig page, it warrants a hatnote, yes? KDS4444 (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There are multiple people with surname "Kidney". They could be listed at Kidney (surname) ... which would then be a valid entry at Kidney (disambiguation) (which is not unreasonably long, even with the name-holders listed, so there seems no point in adding the extra layer of a separate surname page). I've always understood that geographic entities called "XYZ" plus a generic term such as "island", "mount", "river" etc are valid dab page entries for "XYZ", so that the Kidney Island entries are also valid. I also think there's a reasonable argument to include the food entry on the list, as the reader looking for "kidney" as food will not expect to find it only mentioned in an anatomy article. PamD 22:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, starting from the end there: the "Kidney as food" link does go to the article on the anatomical organ (a separate article could be produced on the organ as a food item, and we already have such a precedent in Liver (food), but no such article currently exists for the kidney... Wanna write one?). Me, I don't have a problem having "Kidney" mean both the organ and the food, as they really aren't different things, just different contexts, but this disambig page implies different topics, which they mostly (so far) are not, yes? Second, I agree that there are lots of precedents for using disambig pages for partial title matches like "Kidney Island"... I disagree that the precedents are a good thing or should be imitated, however, as that is not the purpose of a disambig page— the purpose is to give a heads-up to readers who might not know that several other "things" in the world are also known by the same name (usually not just a similar name, and not just a name with the name in it somewhere). The purpose isn't just to catalogue all of the titles that happen to partially match (though I understand that this is how it often appears!). If a person couldn't reasonably be expected to say, "I like kidney" and possibly mean both the food item as well as some famous artist named Mr. Kidney, the two of them don't belong on a disambig list because no one is going to mistake the one for the other in an encyclopedia and no one is going to type in the word "kidney" expecting to find the artist and then be confused when they get the organ. No one. In this sense, having a disamig page that mentions all of the possible permutations of article titles that happen to have the word "kidney" in them only adds to reader confusion. I know it feels right to add all of the partial title matches in here, but it doesn't help the reader and doesn't really do anything to move the project forward— it is a lateral move, which ends up being baggage we don't need. If we need it, then that need should be justified. I am still not seeing that here. Not yet, anyway. KDS4444 (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. The reader looking for kidney as food lands on the page Kidney and finds that it is an anatomical page; no mention of culinary uses in the lead section; if they scroll down a long way they might get to the TOC and notice, a very long way down it, "Kidneys as food", but I think they are much more likely to click on the hatnote and be led to the dab page, from where a helpful link takes them to the section about "Kidneys as food". Yes, they've gone back to the page where they first landed, but they are now seeing the information they want. Job done, dab page has been useful. (Yes, might get around to creating the article some time - quite a few sources, but not an area of cuisine I'm particularly interested in myself).
2. We differ about the islands etc, but as you acknowledge yourself there are many precedents for such terms being (helpfully to my mind) listed on dab pages.
3. There are two people surnamed "Kidney" with WP articles: are you saying that they should not be made accessible to readers who only know their surname? Surname-holders are usually listed on dab pages, or if the dab page becomes too large then in a surname page. No need for the extra layer of complexity here, the dab page does the job nicely. But a hatnote at Kidney would struggle to cope with the two name-holders who have articles as well as the Chinese medicine concept (let alone the useful-to-readers "Kidneys as food").

In short the dab page is useful to readers and complies with our guidelines so Keep. PamD 12:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Current version sufficient as DAB. MB 20:46, 4 May 2017 (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.