User:Doncram/Disambiguation-ChangeTWODABSpolicy

Disambiguation-ChangeTwoDabspolicy Quick Study

Purpose

To get some data to inform ongoing RFC at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages Hypotheses of the researcher (Doncram):

H1: The deletion of a dab generally get reversed after other items added, IMO proving that the Delete decision was wrong and also that the nomination to delete at AFD was wrong.
H2: Everywhere else the dab should be kept, too. I.e., where a dab was deleted and not restored, and where a dab was kept, when I review what happened in the AFD I expect will still think all of the disambiguation pages should be kept, for other reasons (to keep edit history, because it is likely items will be added, etc.... see other reasons given in the RFC).

Sample and procedure

Ideal sample: a random sample of AFDs about disambiguation pages where wp:TWODABS was used to argue for deletion.

Sample achieved: A convenience sample which is a subset of AFDs about disambiguation pages whose names start with letter "D", out of AFD's about disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in their title (i.e. usually where a primary topic has been determined). I didn't see how to find AFDs about disambiguation pages without "(disambiguation)" in their title.

Procedure:

1. Using "subpages" tool, search on all subpages of "Articles for deletion/D": obtain [1]
2. Within those results, manually search for every occurrence of "(disambiguation)".
3. Record the ones that are about TWODABS below. Discard the relatively few AFDs not about TWODABS (or segregate further below in case anyone wishes to review them).
4. Count different types of results and summarize here.

Findings and summary of results

Results: Out of 28 cases found

8 cases where Kept, where items had been added during AFD and that was convincing for at least some editors
5 other cases where Kept
8 cases where it was Deleted, but it was later recreated because in fact it was a valid dab topic.
5 cases where Deleted, but the decision appears wrong. There were valid Keep arguments and/or I see other possible items that could be added so that all would agree they should be kept.
2 cases where it was Deleted, where I see some merit in deleting. These turn out to be cases of "ZERODAB", i.e. no valid dab items.

Findings / Observations / Notes:

There were long-time participants consistently on the Delete side
There were longish-time participants consistently on Keep side (perhaps more editors in total, but not as long each?)
There may not be any long-time participants in the middle...it seems polarized, I think. I may be wrong about this.
No dabs where I (Doncram) participated happened to be included.
The sample turns out to have missed some types of AFDs that I know about:

No cases like Memorial Hall (disambiguation) (cited at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Request for Comment: Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles where it was incredibly totally obvious that more entries than just the Harvard one will be valid. (BTW, there are now 33 items plus a "See also" for that. And there was in fact no Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memorial Hall or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memorial Hall (disambiguation).)
No cases like "Smith House" where common sense and sometimes local knowledge says that obviously "Jane Smith House" is sometimes called "Smith House", but such Jane Smith House items are disputed. (This has happened a number of times.)
No cases where an administrator was obviously miss-using administrative tools to delete linked articles in order "to win" deletion. (I have seen this.)
No cases where the nomination obviously lacked good faith effort to state reasons for deletion. (In the past, there were AFDs with nominator providing no statement. These would be SpeedyKeep now, by some rule.)
No cases where a promotional/COI interest in pushing an item into Wikipedia was apparent.

At least one time there was an item deleted from the dab during the AFD, which would "win" the deletion. This is confusing for discussion, similar to wholesale deletions of material in other articles at AFD, by detractors of the topic. Then the stripped-down article looks inadequate, and it makes it hard for all to consider the merit of the disputed material. (IMO, as for other AFDs, guidance in AFD process should be given: add tags or otherwise call attention to items you dispute, but do not delete items off the dab during the AFD itself. Perhaps one or more suitable tags for use during AFDs of dabs are needed.)
The TWODABS has been interpreted differently over time.

In AFDs in 2012, it was pointed out that hatnotes suffice, but having a two-item dab is harmless, and has some merit. (I recall that argument being made in multiple AFDs)
More recently, apparently, TWODABS has been interpreted by some as allowing Speedy Delete on basic of A6? housekeeping, although there's suggestion at the RFC that PRODS are allowed but not Speedy, now.
The phrase "harmless" was explicitly included in wp:TWODABS (verify? from when to when), but was removed (when).

There is at least one case where a newish contributor was confounded and frustrated by the bureaucracy, and the dab they created was deleted and they were effectively prevented from creating articles on topics they were trying to work on (What happened with the editor, did they quit?)
There is notable frustration expressed by Keep arguers, e.g. calls for a moratorium on AFDs of useful dab pages.
AFD #30 shows a problem is that hatnotes can be deleted at the primary-usage page, and with no two-item dab page, the other info can simply be lost. The hatnote deleted went to something like a DABMENTION, I think, it was not an exact match article.
I think the sample shows an evolution towards acceptance that redlink items are valid. MOS:DABRL is old, I believe, and applied during the entire period. Newer editors tend not to believe that redlinks are valid; with fewer new editors these days and more experience in AFD commenters, the redlinks are better regarded.
I think DABMENTIONS (are these what I termed blacklinks?) have achieved greater acceptance as counting.
"See also" usages were present in some of the dabs but I think did not see arguments that they provided reason to keep a dab. OTOH in the RFC discussion there seems to be consensus that at least inbound "See also" links count as valid items. And I think there may be consensus and/or it is a corollary that outbound "See also" links should count, too.

Conclusions

H1 is borne out. Many (8 out of 13) deletions have already been reversed (one by me during this exercise). I have so far found grounds that everyone would agree on to reverse at least 2 of the remaining 5. I and some others see usefulness in the 2-item dab pages, whether or not additional items are immediately found to make everyone agree they have merit. I personally think it is not right for my attention and/or the attention of other "curationist"-minded editors to have to fight to keep dabs, when the fight could be avoided by changing the interpretation of TWODABS back to "keeping is okay, if the dab has been created" (and strengthening that)
H2 is also borne out. I thought that I was finding I had to agree with some deletions, but on further consideration, these were not TWODAB cases, they were "ZERODAB" cases. I disagree with all of the deletions where TWODABS was argued.
- There were 2 cases where all entries were satisfactorily disputed and deleted (call this "ZERODABS"). If there is really not a single usage of any type, I have to concede that the disambiguation page should be deleted.
Although there were no cases of commercial/COI promotion in the sample, an "always keep" policy would lend itself to being gamed by promoter-types, who could get company names or brands or product names into Wikipedia by adding blacklink or redlink items, using actual names or nicknames of companies or their products. So I do want to allow rejection of some items on promotional/COI grounds, which could mean some DAB pages get brought down to one or zero items.
I realize I do want to extend the proposal about the following:
- If there is just one usage, then redirect (do not delete). It may be labelled as a "Redirect with possibilities" if it seems likely a 2nd usage will be added eventually. If that doesn't seem likely, then simple Redirect. A 2nd usage may nonetheless come up, and it saves edit history and history of disputes and references and so on, etc.
- If there truly are zero usages, and it goes to AFD and no one finds any, then okay, delete.

Caveats: It is likely that I made one or more errors in categorizing or other, as people make errors, as there always are errors in any big analysis, and as categorizing is subjective. I also did this fairly quickly and it is incomplete right now, in terms of how I want to write it up. However, I swear this is an unbiased sample, in that I deliberately chose a sampling process where there was no a priori reason to expect a slant, and I didn't change results or selectively drop results. I also tried to be honest about what my hypotheses were beforehand. (A study is more valid if the hypotheses are stated in advance, and then sample is collected and tested, than if the hypotheses are formed partly from browsing the results.) The categories created here were not defined in advance, however, they are formed to describe the gathered data. And I acknowledge that the tone of my writing reflects my (informed) bias towards keeping all 2-item dab pages. With more time editing, I could make it read more objectively. However others have the data now and can assess how they would decide in the 32 cases (28 two-dabs ones, 4 unrelated). Note: In the sampling process early on I did not record some AFDs which seemed obviously unrelated. Should I go back and get them?

Further research hypotheses: Perhaps there is longer continuity of editors on the "Delete" side of these, and more intense frustration and turnover of the editors on the side of Keep. The total number of editors on "Keep" side may be larger. The collective view, the consensus, may in fact be more on the side of "Keep" for all of these, if all were considering each example. (But, as the frustrated Keepers will note, it is a waste of more editors time for all to be involved, again and again. Waste of time may not to be as much of a concern for those who vote "Delete" (i.e. they value it less, so are more inclined to vote "Delete".)

Classification of sample

AFDs in the sample are classified as to which of the following "best fit":

OldInterp: Kept, with best outcome, applying the old interpretation of TWODAB items: Two-item dab kept, without editors being forced to make up stuff on a false, short deadline. (5 examples / 28 = 18% for OldInterp + OtherKeep combined)
OtherKeep: Kept for other reasons besides OldInterp and AddsSave.
AddsSave: Kept, but AFD forced immediate dispute and refocus of editors to create articles and/or items to defend the dab. (8 examples / 28 = 29%)
ProvenWrong: Deleted, but that decision has been proven wrong since by identification of more than 2 items, and it has been recreated. However, the edit history has not been restored in any one of these, so Wikipedia's promise of attribution to contributors is not met. Effort and goodwill was wasted, too. (8 examples / 28 = 29%)
DelBut: Deleted, but despite evidence of other likely items and other value of keeping dab. Assuming growth generally, all would have eventually gotten to 3 or more items IMO. Existing as 2 items would have been fine too IMO. Edit history lost, work and discussion lost, and it remains work to recreate all of these and battle it all out again and again. And/or it remains bad to continue to frustrate new and experienced editors trying in good faith to create decent navigation and help readers and make progress. (5 examples / 28 = 18%)
AllGone: Deleted, and decision seems okay IMO. All items deleted or never had articles. (2 examples / 28 = 7%%)
Unrelated: AFD did not involve argument to delete based on TWODABS. (4 examples)
Total = 5+8+8+5+2+4= 32
Total where TWODABS-type argument made = 28
- subtotal Kept or restored: 21/28 = 75%, where IMO all should agree that the AFD was costly and a waste of time.
- subtotal Deleted, not yet restored = 5/28 = 18%, where some will agree AFD was costly and more work was created, is yet to be done.
- subtotal Deleted validly = 2/28 = 7% where the community focus was productive. Really these were not TWODAB or even ONEDAB cases, they were ZERODAB cases, though.

OtherWrong: Extra code where something else went wrong IMO. See the individual AFDs.

Sample: Table of AFDs

Note: In the table below "#" is merely a row number from 1-32, just reflecting original entry order. The table is sortable. The current presentation order is by Type category (OldInterp or OtherKeep; AddsSave; ProvenWrong; DelBut; AllGone). (Please comment and ask questions on sample and methods at Talk page.)

#	AFD	Date	Result	Type	Note
9	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep One (disambiguation) Deep One Deep One (disambiguation)	2006	Keep	OldInterp	Kept 2-item dab contrary to recent interpretation of twodabs. It has been no problem since.
12	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Wimpy Kid (disambiguation) Diary of a Wimpy Kid Diary of a Wimpy Kid (disambiguation)	2012	Keep	OtherKeep	Four valid items, but it was argued that they appear on a template together, so dab not needed. Were some items arguably partial title matches?
23	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Chan (disambiguation) Dominic Chan Dominic Chan (disambiguation)	2016	Keep	OtherKeep	A redlink and a dabmention were disputed as invalid entries, arguably bringing down to one or two valid items. That view did not carry.
25	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Dewar (disambiguation) Donald Dewar Donald Dewar (disambiguation)	2009	Keep	OldInterp, OtherWrong	TWODAB argued, and this was kept as 2-item dab page. (But later, in 2012, it was Speedy deleted with invocation G6: "Obviously unnecessary disambiguation page"). Arguments of note: "....However, the fact that the disambiguation page is not currently being used does not mean that it must be deleted, merely that it may be deleted. Human names are usually ambiguous, and as an editor mostly working with human names I find that quite it is quite common for a 2-entry dab page which I have started to be expanded within a year or two to include people from countries or fields of endevour which I have little knowledge of. A pre-existing dab page helps to ensure that any additions can be done easily and accurately, and while it may not always be appropriate to create a dab page in such circumstances, its existence causes no harm. This is a contrast to the situation with articles, where an article on a non-notable person clutters the namespace with irrelevancy ... and while the nominator does great work in cleaning up dab pages, she is showing excessive zeal in finding ways to delete them. This dabpage-deletionism does not benefit wikipedia, and in several cases which I have tried unsuccessfully to discuss with her, it has resulted in breaking the work which other editors have done to disambiguate articles. In the case of people involved in similar fields of endeavour, the resulting tangle can take a lot of work to undo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)" "Keep. Lots of other people with this name can be found at this search, which is restricted to 1975 and earlier to screen out most of the references to the Scottish politician. I think we need a moratorium on deleting valid dab pages. – Eastmain (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)" "Comment. Strongly support the moratorium. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) "... and note WP:2DAB, which says this this sort of "disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, but is harmless". Why delete something harmless? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC) "...While acknowledging that WP:HARMLESS isn't usually a good argument, in this case, we're talking about a disamb page and not an article. I view this as having infrastructure for the third person with this name already in place, rather than a useless disambiguation page. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)"
28	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Haig (disambiguation) Douglas Haig Douglas Haig (disambiguation)	2010	Keep (no consensus)	OtherKeep?	Twodabs was argued, as a redlink was asserted not to count and one may have been a partial match because it included a middle name? A DABMENTION was deleted during the AFD. Selected quote: "...Keep since there are (apparently) three possible entities that a person searching on "Douglas Haig" could be looking for, it appears. Obviously over 99% (I would guess) of people searching on "Douglas Haig" are looking for Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig. The hatnote in that article is for the other <1%. But what are those <1% looking for? Who knows? They may be looking for the Argentine football team, the actor, or another person. I don't want to make the judgment that no one of these <1% are looking for the actor. The only harm in keeping the disambig page is that it will add an extra click for people looking for the football club. I think the trade-off is worth it. Herostratus (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)" Note some argued that the redlink for Douglas Haig (actor) would never become an article, but it was created in 2010 and never disputed.--Doncram (now, September 27, 2016)
1	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DBCS (disambiguation) DBCS DBCS (disambiguation)	2015	Keep (withdrawn)	AddsSave	And then there were 3. Another item was added.
5	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daud Shah (disambiguation) Daud Shah Daud Shah (disambiguation)	2012	Keep	AddsSave	Disputed because one of two was a redlink; kept when an editor added 2 entries.
8	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Zimmer (disambiguation) David Zimmer David Zimmer (disambiguation)	2009	Keep (no consensus)	AddsSave	11 voters spent time. Notable arguments IMO: Keep Dab pages are cheap, especially when they already exist. It's more trouble to delete them & convert them to hat notes than to leave them be. We shouldnt deliberately create new ones when there are 2 alternatives, but i see no reason to remove any which are not confusing, or in situations where one of the two is much the more important. DGG (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Keep, only because a third valid entry has been added. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Keep multiple routes to the same article are best. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Strong delete Disambiguations are supposed to guide someone to two or more different articles when there are multiple articles. There is only one notable person that needs disambiguating, so the disambiguation is not necessary. If the other articles are created, I don't see why this can't be recreated, but at this moment, it is NOT needed. Tavix (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
10	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Unionist Party (disambiguation) Democratic Unionist Party Democratic Unionist Party (disambiguation)	2010	Keep, Speedy	AddsSave	after 6 items added.
13	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digon (disambiguation) Digon Digon (disambiguation)	2016	Keep	AddsSave	Partial title matches asserted. After it was prodded for having just 2 items, Boleyn removed prod and added surname section with 2 items.
19	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disambiguation (disambiguation) (2nd nomination) Disambiguation Disambiguation (disambiguation)	2009	Keep, Speedy	AddsSave	after a 3rd item was added "I feel like dabs are cheap and it isn't strictly necessary to delete this, personally." - Dekimasu
32	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drown (disambiguation)	2010	Keep	AddsSave	2 were added to 2 existing items, and also Drowning (disambiguation) was merged in.
31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dying to Live (disambiguation) Dying to Live Dying to Live (disambiguation)	2009	Keep	AddsSave?	Was PRODed, then AFDd. Of four items, 2 were redlinks, notability of 2 were questioned. One or more were added during AFD. Now in 2016 it has 3 exact matches and 4 DABMENTIONS (blacklinks) "Pointless dab" was one dismissive argument, which turns out to be clearly wrong this time. IMO, voters cannot know whether it is pointless or not, frankly, and it is too strong a statement to make. --Doncram (now)
4	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Knight (disambiguation) The Dark Knight The Dark Knight (disambiguation)	2007	Delete	ProvenWrong	But since recreated. Now has 12 items and 6 See also's.
11	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek McGrath (disambiguation) Derek McGrath Derek McGrath (disambiguation)	2009	Delete	ProvenWrong	But since recreated, now has 4 items.
14	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimension X (disambiguation) Dimension X Dimension X (disambiguation)	2005	Delete	ProvenWrong	However there are now 2 hatnotes / 3 items and it could be recreated. [It was recreated by me, Doncram, just now (September 28, 2016).]
15	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dingoes ate my baby (disambiguation) Dingoes ate my baby Dingoes ate my baby (disambiguation)	2013	Delete	ProvenWrong	It was called "absurd", but it was well-argued IMO that there is use for something in Wikipedia to clarify usage of the phrase. Participants did not see their way to having a dab page with three DABMENTIONS, which I think would have fit. A suggested text (which could be reworked into a dab format IMO) was: *"Dingoes took* my baby"** was a phrase used by Lindy Chamberlain to summarise her legal defence against allegations she had murdered her daughter Azaria Chamberlain in 1980, suggesting instead that dingoes had killed the child. The phrase is often misquoted substituting "ate" for "took" when the events leading the trial were made famous by the 1988 film Evil Angels based on Chamberlain's book of the same name. The paraphrased quote has since been used in unrelated popular culture, often in a satirical context. The version of the term with "took" rather than "ate" would redirect to the dab. UPDATE: The disambiguation page was recreated promptly in 2013 and evolved to this version in December 2013, before being changed to a regular article, not a DAB. In retrospect, IMO, it was wrong to delete the original, and the edit history currently fails to show contributions properly.
18	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disambiguation (disambiguation) Disambiguation Disambiguation (disambiguation)	2005	Delete	ProvenWrong	Its only items then were a dictionary definition and wp:Disambiguation. But those should have sufficed IMO, and anyhow it was recreated and there are more now.
20	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distant Early Warning (disambiguation) Distant Early Warning Distant Early Warning (disambiguation)	2006	Delete	ProvenWrong	But was recreated in 2007.
21	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do No Harm (disambiguation) Do No Harm Do No Harm (disambiguation)	2006	Delete, Speedy	ProvenWrong	But recreated in 2006. Now has 9 items (including a partial match, a redlink, two blacklinks) plus 1 "See also".
24	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Chan (disambiguation) Dominic Chan Dominic Chan (disambiguation)	2011	Delete	ProvenWrong	But recreated in 2011. Has 5 items now.
2	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DV8 (disambiguation) DV8 DV8 (disambiguation)	2009	Delete	DelBut	But there are multiple uses in Google. (Can do more to support re-creation now.)
3	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Avery (disambiguation) Daniel Avery Daniel Avery (disambiguation)	2009	Delete	DelBut	A third Daniel Avery could be the musical artist.
7	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Yost (disambiguation) David Yost David Yost (disambiguation)	2013	Delete	DelBut	Dispute about which is primary, and about notability of a third item at AFC. DavidPackLambert comment that better to keep for new ones to be added. This is a case where a candidate person has become more notable recently. Searching Google for "David Yost -auditor -actor" yields the David Yost who in 2016 became the quarterbacks coach for the Oregon Ducks and is giving interviews and is featured in news articles, after 3 years at Washington State in another coaching position where he did not give interviews. he is interviewed. Note Ducks are ranked 22 nation-wide in pre-season poll]. Here is a major rticle about him:[2] also at OregonLive. Here is ESPN article about him. Here is Seattle Times article about him. He explains his crazy hair. 7 photos of him at 247 Sports, but every article has a photo because of how he does look. He is under Mark Helfrich (American football) as head coach of Oregon Ducks; he is known as a product of coach Mike Leach (American football coach) at Washington State. He is notable. There are other David Yosts, also. Next steps: Create stub article about David Yost (American football) or David Yost (American football coach). Request restoration of the DAB.
29	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Raj (disambiguation) Dr Raj Dr Raj (disambiguation)	2016	Delete	DelBut.	There was just one fairly clearly valid, Rajkumar (actor). It was revised to show usage of "Dr. Raj" in the article. Notability of a second item (apparently a redlink) was "questionable and not proved yet." It was noted that a few people could be referred to as Dr. Raj. [These would be DABMENTIONS now?]. "Obviously unnecessary disambiguation page" was one vote. Quick searching yields: Dr. Raj is a Beverly Hills orthopedist, youtube video here. Dr. Raj is a doctor in Commack, New York: [3] Dr. Raj is a pain medicine doctor (in NJ, NY, CT) with a radio show named "Head Up with Dr. Raj". See [4], with radio shows listed, and his blog, and this bio info, and Facebook page. He has a book published. Dr. Radhika Raj, a woman who is a doctor in Neenah, Wisconsin [5] There are others, too. Sooner or later one of them will have a Wikipedia article, I imagine. Having the disambiguation page would facilitate discussion, controlling down the likelihood of a non-notable one creating an article for themself.
30	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duke of Reichstadt (disambiguation) Duke of Reichstadt Duke of Reichstadt (disambiguation)	2008	Delete, Speedy	DelBut, OtherWrong	Deleted by argument of G6 non-controversial housekeeping, a Twodabs argument. AFD was closed 2 hours after it was opened, before there was any comment by anyone besides nominator. Duke of Reichstadt was then redirected to what is now Napoleon II. It was stated that a hatnote has been placed at Napoleon II of France to facilitate disambiguation with Petar Stojanović (composer)'s operetta. [However the hatnote has disappeared since.] That was presumably a DABMENTION? or a redlink? I assume there is a non-primary usage (yes, the "stage work" listed in [[Petar Stojanović (composer): "Vojvoda od Rajhštata (The Duke of Reichstadt; Die Herzog von Reichstadt); libretto by Viktor Léon and Heinz Reichert, Vienna, 1921"). What happened shows a need to keep a two-item dab page to remember the non-primary item, as its mention in a hatnote will possibly be deleted at whim. The painting "Le duc de Reichstadt", by Leopold Bucher, which is worth a DABMENTION perhaps "Der Herzog von Reichstadt als kleiner Gärtner" by Carl von Sales, another work that might be individually notable The page Duke of Reichstadt (disambiguation) appears to have been deleted in 2007, restored in 2007, deleted in 2008. It appears to me to be a valid two-item dab page. Zákupy#Duke of Reichstadt says two emperors inherited Reichstadt (Zakupy), the latter who died in 1916. Reichstadt was absorbed into a state in 1930. It is not suggested anywhere that I can see, that anyone besides Napoleon II ever carried the title Duke of Reichstadt. Additional items for the dab page will be few, but perhaps there is a painting or bust or sculpture titled that, or other works? [Yes, there are at least four paintings with that title within Commons category for him. Also searches in German language or Serbian(?) would be likely to find something. Next step: obtain restoration of the dab?
22	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group (disambiguation) Dominant group Dominant group (disambiguation)	2011	Delete, Speedy	AllGone	was "Delete (wp:snow)" **11 other AFDs for Dominant group (extinction), Dominant group (petrology), etc.
26	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doodlemail (disambiguation) Doodlemail Doodlemail (disambiguation)	2008	Delete, Speedy	AllGone	CSD G6 one of two items was deleted during AFD. Doodlemail does not currently exist, so other was never created or must have been deleted too. Apparently there were 2 redlinks, articles being created? --doncram Frustrated newish editor: "I do not know how 'speedily' deletion occurs so I am having to waste my time asking for these articles not be deleted before I have a chance to create them. You may be jaded wikipedia editors sick and tired of people creating pointless articles on their friend's aunt's pets, but Doodlemail the AT&T program is used by many people, as is the Doodlemail.co.uk email service. They are valid articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodlemail (talk • contribs) 09:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Speedy Delete lack of content (dab pages with less than 3 entries as I understand it fall under this somewhere). No prejudice against the creation of individual pages for these 2 subjects as long as the resulting articles conform to our policies and guidelines for notability and verifiability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)" "Delete This page will not be necessary once both are redlinks, which should be happening any time now." Quick searching by me yields nothing immediately obviously valid. I found: Youtube about a doodlemail Dear Mary Doodles... Snap Doodle Mail ...an app that lets you email in your own handwriting. There is a a stock photo. A twitter something. Doodle Mail Wraps. is a home postal mailbox wrap. here. Email doodle set from Shutterstruck. Email related to a Doodle poll? [6]

Unrelated

The following seem unrelated. Note also there were a few more disambiguation pages early alphabetically in the AFDs starting with "D", which I judged were unrelated, and I did not record them.

#	AFD	Date	Result	Type	Note
6	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Quinn (disambiguation) David Quinn David Quinn (disambiguation)	2005	Keep	Unrelated	Confusion about the items also being covered in Quinn (disambiguation)?. There were two items. [BTW, now there are 8 items.]
16	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Pair (disambiguation) Dirty Pair Dirty Pair (disambiguation)	2007	Keep	Unrelated?	Issue was all items were covered by hatnotes from Dirty Pair itself.
17	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Pair Flash (disambiguation) Dirty Pair Flash Dirty Pair Flash (disambiguation)	2007	Redirected to Dirty Pair (disambiguation)	Unrelated?
27	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Seventh Festival (disambiguation) Double Seventh Festival Double Seventh Festival (disambiguation)	2014	Keep	Unrelated	Was about a 3-item page and possible merger of 2 of the articles into 3rd article.