Talk:Beelzebub (disambiguation)

Notability

Concerning this edit, please point me to where it says that we shouldn't list "non-notable" entries. From what I know, no such rule exists. Inclusively Kurama, Zero (disambiguation), Vincent (disambiguation), Sasuke, Eugene (given name), Akuma, Love (disambiguation), Yusuke, and Haruka (given name) are precedents for my edit since these dabs include items/redirects which can be called "non-notable". Care to demonstrate otherwise? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to a need to have it. We normally avoid redlink entries unless there's a feeling that the article redlinked should be created. Do you feel that this minor anime character ought to have its own article? Mango juice^talk 02:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to violate WP:POINT, but I don't even see how the article that link redirects to is appropriate for Wikipedia. There are no references and no hint of any out-of-universe importance. Can you explain? Otherwise it might be in Wikipedia's interests to have an WP:AFD. Mango juice^talk 04:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but your logic still doesn't make sense to me. Nothing says they belong here, nothing says they shouldn't. It's not a question of right or wrong. I've already presented a bunch of precedents above anyway, yet, you haven't even shown one. Maybe WP:WPDIS should be aware of this "dispute". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since Akuma na Eros does at least talk about Beelzeebub (even though that article maybe shouldn't even exist on Wikipedia), I see no reason we can't have the link there. There is a notability bar to pass for entries on disambiguation pages: namely, if an entry has been demonstrated to be inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be removed. (E.g. if someone made a WP:NFT-violating article about another "version" of Beelzebub, and which was soon deleted, it would be perfectly normal to remove the disambiguation entry, if they had added one.) So I guess the bar is inclusion of information rather than a stand-alone article. I can live with that. I suggest you do what you can, though, to demonstrate that Akuma na Eros ought to exist -- I'm not nominating it for AfD right now because it did get a lot of google hits and you seem to care about the topic. But if process on that stagnates, I will nominate it. Mango juice^talk 15:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WLU's recent changes

I'm sorry but a few of your edits just don't add up. Here's why:

1. All of the current red linked entries meet MOS:DABRL standards

2. Have you read MOS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic?

3. Who says "the Bible ain't exactly history"? The term 'theology' is a perfect word

4. Why did you italicize Beelzeboss (The Final Showdown)‎ like so? Song titles are supposed to be quoted

Response? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta eat crow on this one, you've hit every single error I made on the head. I've made a further adjustment to the first sentence per the Beelzebub. Thanks, those are areas I've probably made errors in on DAB pages before so it's good to know and it's a pretty long page to memorize. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just glad you understood. Much obliged ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so detailed in your reply - helps my learning and makes it hard to argue

WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]