Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Are You Lonesome Tonight? (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Lonesome Tonight? (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Perhaps I just don't know how this works. I left a PROD on this page because only two of the listed items have blue links, and one of those is up for AfD and is likely not to survive. But now I see that PROD has been removed because there are blue links for associated people, just not the listed works themselves. Is that right? Do we allow a dab page that only links to one item which actually shares its title? Personally, I think it's a bit silly and I wouldn't allow it, hence my PROD. But if there's disagreement there which I'm unaware of, I'd love to hear it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Theatre, and Disambiguations. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It is a valid dab page: it lists and distinguishes a group of things sharing a title, each of which is mentioned in a Wikipedia page, to which there is a blue link in the entry. There is nothing to be gained from deleting this useful navigational tool. It will help readers. It will also help any future editors who might want to mention, or link to, or make a page for, one of these entities. See MOS:DABRED. PamD 21:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As noted above, this is a valid disambiguation page. It's not entirely uncommon for titles of works to be ambiguous like this as a result of either being intentionally reused or used independently by multiple creators. TompaDompa (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The likelihood of any of these red links becoming articles is slim, and while a dabpage that includes only red links may be allowed per WP:DABRED, it's usefulness is nil. 162 etc. (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turns out the 2021 film has received a fair amount of coverage in sources, so I created Are You Lonesome Tonight? (2021 film). I suspect there is more to be found in Chinese-language sources. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Since no other article for a film named "Are You Lonesome Tonight?" exists, the correct title is Are You Lonesome Tonight? (film). 162 etc. (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm also fairly sure that the play by Alan Bleasdale is notable. Simon Bowman's official website quotes reviews of the play from Daily Express, Time Out, London Broadcasting, The Observer, London Standard, and Sunday Express. It might be the case that these sources are only available in print, but assuming that the reviews aren't completely made up, the play almost certainly meets WP:GNG. I also found coverage in Los Angeles Times and Trust News, for good measure. TompaDompa (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect back to Are You Lonesome Tonight?. Fails MOS:DABRED, "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should be included on a disambiguation page only when a linked article ... also includes that red link" and none of the redlinks have article redlinks.[1] The sole blue link can be handled with a hatnote. // Timothy :: talk  10:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]

  It would be possible to unlink those red links and leave them as valid dab page entries with unlinked black text, items mentioned in the blue linked articles. Would the encyclopedia be improved? Not really. There's a possibility any of these items might some time get an article and someone has taken the time to suggest appropriate disambiguations for them all. Best left as is. PamD 15:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've converted the Bleasdale play to a redirect to an anchor in his article as there are a couple of sourced sentences about the musical. PamD 15:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Now a clearly valid disambiguation page with multiple blue links. BD2412 T 03:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per changes to article. Works as a DAB now.  // Timothy :: talk  04:02, 12 April 2023 (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.