Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adjacent

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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adjacency

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Bg9989 (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and turn into disambiguation page. -- intgr [talk] 13:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation page. Per ingr's suggestion I have turned this into a disambiguation page. I agree that the previous content was too indiscriminate to support an actual article, but I think it is fine as a dab. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I moved this from Adjacent to Adjacency, thereby automatically creating a new redirect page, then made it into a disambiguation page. Then I edited this present page accordingly, so that it's about adjacency rather than adjacent. Then David Eppstein made the new redirect page into a disambiguation page. Then he apparently redirected adjacent to adjacency. Usually when I get redirected, I can click on the word in the notice at the top of the page saying I'd been redirected, and I can see the redirect page and its history. This time that didn't work: I just got redirected again. What is going on? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be fixed now. All but the misspelled link in your comment now point to the dab page --Mark viking (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in your (that is, Hardy's) talk, we were both making incompatible changes at the same time: me making it from an article into a dab and you moving it from adjacent to adjacency. In the process the edit history got split into two and fixing that involved making even more moves. I think it's all straight now. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be moved back to "adjacent" because it's much more common and nearly all of the disambiguated links start with the word "adjacent". -- intgr [talk] 19:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article titles policy states "Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech [...]. Adjective and verb forms (e.g. democratic, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun". Deltahedron (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep adjacency has multiple disparate meanings with no one meaning clearly dominant, so I agree that disambiguation page is the right approach here. As a dab page, there is no reason to delete. --Mark viking (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation page. Deltahedron (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's perfectly OK as a disambiguation page. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2013 (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.