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. There's clearly no consensus here to delete, which is really what AfD is about. There appears to be a consensus that this needs work (possibly involving dab pages or redirects), but that's out of scope for AfD, so people are free to pursue any fixup ideas via normal editorial process. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of peaks named Signal Mountain[edit]

List of peaks named Signal Mountain (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)

This list-article is presented prominently in guidance about set-index-articles (SIA)s vs. disambiguation pages vs. list-articles as an example of good practice, but it seems like a bad example to me. The article itself is poor: there is no natural readership for its topic, which is trivial; it seems miss-named and does not serve a lookup purpose because it lists only U.S. examples; it simply looks poor visually and it provides scant information: merely location plus elevation, though it uses 6 data columns to present that. Note 21 out of 27 peaks listed are red-links, even after many years of prominence. More importantly, this list duplicates Signal Mountain, a better-looking disambiguation page, to which the 6 blue-linked items can be added. In effect merger of this article to Signal Mountain would be appropriate IMO. Other members of Category:Set indices on mountains deserve critical review, also. There is no encyclopedic value for "List of hills named Z" type compilations of locations and altitudes, IMO, and no loss from deleting their data (which all remains available from USGS anyhow). doncram 01:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Mountains has been notified of this deletion discussion. —hike395 (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "seems like a bad example" --- you're certainly free to change the example at WP:SIA
  2. "no natural readership, trivial" --- this seems to be a version of the WP:ITSCRUFT argument, which isn't valid. When we discussed this style of SIA over at WikiProject Mountains (in 2006?), it was clear that there was a reader we had in mind: someone who wanted to know some information about a specific named peak, but was confused about whether Wikipedia contained that information and if so, which peak it was. The extra information about location and elevation directs our readers to the correct article, and encourages new articles about missing peaks.
  3. "mis[s]-named" --- Having an incorrect title isn't a valid reason to delete an article, see WP:LOUSYTITLE. If you wish to propose a new name that is better and consistent with WP:TITLE, please go ahead.
  4. "looks poor visually" --- This seems to be a variant of WP:UGLY, which is not a valid reason for deletion. If you think using the wikitable class is better, we can certainly change that. (Note that we should change it on similar mountain SIAs).
  5. "provides scant information" --- It provides elevation and location information that a standard disambiguation page cannot (per WP:MOSDAB). I can't quite see how deleting it helps. I cannot support the merging back to a dab.
  6. "U.S. only" --- A quite valid issue in terms of improving the article, but not a reason to delete.
  7. "21 out of 27 peaks listed are red-linked" --- remember Wikipedia has no deadline. Having a list article with many red links is not a valid reason for deletion.
I believe that this list does not duplicate Signal Mountain. This article follows WP:SIA, where a disambiguation page can exist alongside a set index article. I think Signal Mountain should contain non-mountains and this list should contain mountains. I'm happy to remove the peaks from Signal Mountain.
In summary, I don't think that there is a valid proposed reason to delete this list. I can fix the style and overlap issues. The (old) consensus over at WP:WikiProject Mountains is that the elevation and altitude information is valuable to our readers and editors. —hike395 (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Later --- would it help if we renamed the SIA to List of peaks named Signal ? That way, it could include Signal Hill, etc. Often readers don't know whether something is called Signal Hill, Signal Peak, Signal Mountain, Mount Signal, Mount Signalling, etc. —hike395 (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re "2006?" - you may be thinking of this discussion in 2007. DexDor (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree that List of peaks named Kennedy Peak (current version permalinked), to which Kennedy Peak redirects is a dab page. There is no value to readers added by it being marked as an SIA; there is no info given that can't be on a dab page. And, it has accumulated incorrect inbound links, because there's no systematic review of inbound links to SIAs. Currently five mainspace articles link to it:
This should be taken out of Category:Set indices on mountains by means of replacing ((Mountainindex|Kennedy Peak)) by ((disambiguation)) instead, IMO.
Pinneshiri and Mount Tsurugi are similar, and have 0 and 11 incorrect inbound links, respectively.
By the way, I see also that List of peaks named Signal Mountain currently has one incorrect inbound link, from Big Spring, Texas.
Before Kennedy Peak, Pinneshiri, Mount Tsurugi and any others like them are converted to dabs that way, does WikiProject Mountains want for them to be marked in some way to remember them? Actually just ensuring that they are included in the WikiProject would do that; then they would show up in the WikiProject's tally of articles by class and importance (as disambiguation-class), or could be found using wp:CatScan. Currently only the first one has WikiProject Mountains on its Talk page, though. --doncram 00:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we move this part of the discussion to WT:WikiProject Mountains? If we're going to make changes to the Mountain SIAs, I would like more people to know about it.
The (old) consensus over at that WikiProject is that if you have a list of mountains with similar names, then they should be an SIA, and that they should be formatted like List of peaks named Signal Mountain. Articles like Kennedy Peak, Pinneshiri, etc., that are formatted like dabs are incorrect -- they should be expanded into list articles, have altitudes and coordinates added to them, and not converted back to dabs. Now, it's been at least 7 years since we discussed this (consensus can change), so I'm happy to bring this back up. I thought the old consensus made sense. I'm happy to go through the Mountain SIAs and expand them up, if necessary. —hike395 (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of peaks named Baldy is different, because it is the one page that provides the lookup function to readers. Baldy Mountain is a redirect to it.
  • What the !votes above do not address is the fact that a disambiguation page simply needs to list the articles it disambiguates. Signal Mountain being the disambiguation page, it needs to include all of the mountains that seem to be notable (have or are likely to have articles). Dab pages can include redlinks, as long as they are supported by an appropriate bluelink, per MOS:DABRL. However the disambiguation page at "Signal Mountain" does not serve the lookup function expected, as it omits all of the mountains named "Signal Mountain"! The problem is not duplication, there are much longer disambiguation pages.
  • Note the disambiguation page previously had all or most of the bluelink mountains, but those were removed during this AFD. If "Signal Mountain" is a disambiguation page it should hold all of the bluelinks and all of the redlink ones too.
  • It mainly bothers me that "Signal Mountain" is a disambiguation page where readers arrive, yet it does not include the notable mountains. If "Signal Mountain" was the set index article of the mountains, with a proper introductory sentence or two establishing that there is a thing called a "signal mountain", and these are examples, then it would be okay, by me. A hatnote at the top would say "For other uses, see Signal Mountain (disambiguation)", to handle any other miscellaneous usage including as town names. That would be treating the mountains as the main usage of the term, as in wp:PRIMARYUSAGE. (They look like the main usage, to me.)
  • Being a "thing": I am assuming that the mountains named Signal Mountain are ones whose peaks are pretty good places to send signals from, and to receive signals. Sent by native american smoke signals during daytime, by fires at night, by U.S. army signal stations using flashing mirrors (heliographs?). I bet these ones do stand out as being visible from far away or from a wide area, relatively speaking, and these conversely have unobstructed views. Some usage that way is mentioned in one or more of the articles, one mentioning smoke signals. Likewise "Lookout Mountain" at Chattanooga and other "lookout mountains", and "Sentinel Mountain" or "El centenaro" are of the same nature. A "baldy mountain" is a "thing", too, presumably a mountain that has a bare upper area. Maybe mountains named after George Washington is an okay "thing", and an SIA of some of the more notable examples would be okay. Note, a Ray's Pizza is recognized as a thing, properly. A set index article should strive to explain what the "thing" is, how the items are related.
  • Covering notable ones only: The Ray's Pizza article could include a list of notable examples, but it should not list the locations of every pizza shop having that name. Likewise not every Signal Hill, mound, etc., should be listed. It has been established repeatedly at AFD that not every USGS listed geographical feature is notable. Surely not all of the 27 mountains/hills are really notable (i.e. discussed in some depth in independent sources), and should not be redlinks. Notability for list-items is a lower standard, so some other ones can be kept, but should be unlinked. We don't want to direct readers and editors to create articles for them.
I have addressed some of Hike395's comments. Their main point is that numerous deficiencies (being trivial, having no readership, being miss-named, looking poor visually, having scant info, etc.), do not mean the list should be deleted. But these deficiencies cast doubt on whether there is a valid topic here. Is it just a synthesis? An indiscriminate list? There is no assertion of importance of the topic. USGS, the one source used for the separate pieces of info put together here, does not speak of this set as a collection. There are no sources for any text, because there is no text. Having fault on one or two of these can be dismissed. But a new user submitting an article having qualities like this, in a different area, would see their article deleted in no time. So there is a problem. Really, why do we have this as an article, at all?
One part of Hike395's comment gets at a possible answer: "When we discussed this style of SIA over at WikiProject Mountains (in 2006?), it was clear that there was a reader we had in mind: someone who wanted to know some information about a specific named peak, but was confused about whether Wikipedia contained that information and if so, which peak it was. The extra information about location and elevation directs our readers to the correct article, and encourages new articles about missing peaks." We don't want new articles about all of these, necessarily. But the thrust about the SIA serving like a disambiguation page, only perhaps better because it provides more identifying info, has some validity. However, I am stuck on the point that there exists a disambiguation page that can provide adequate identifying info about each one, enough for readers to distinguish between them, already: the other page. This is standing as if it is a valid topic on its own which it is not. --doncram 22:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Disambiguation and WikiProject Lists now have been notified. doncram 22:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both User:Doncram and User:Clarityfiend want to make Signal Mountain a list article that is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, leaving the other two towns as hatnotes. I would be fine with this (it's intuitive that someone typing "signal mountain" wants a mountain). If that makes everyone happy and closes the issue, then we can end the discussion. If we want to move the list article to Signal Mountain without copy-paste, then we would need an admin. Otherwise, I'm happy to do the edit. If Doncram is still unhappy, we can discuss further. —hike395 (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram would be happy with that. (And an administrator should do a history merge, to implement the move while saving the history, per our general contract with editors.) --doncram 19:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Signal Mountain should be a dab page (or a redirect to a dab page) (not a SIA) - that way any inlinks are likely to get noticed/fixed. IMO, we should only have SIAs if they have a title like "List of foos named Bar". DexDor (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that incoming links to SIAs are not systematically checked is a different issue. I have raised that point in this discussion at wt:DPL, that it makes sense to expand the wp:DPL project (or start a new one) to address the separate-but-similar problem. And, some incoming links would be correct as a link to the SIA, e.g. referring in general to a "signal mountain", when that is properly explained as a "thing" at the top. If it is a Dab page, then [good links like that would not allowed, and will be removed, and there would be churning as good links are created and removed again and again.]--doncram 19:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC) [restated part, doncram 23:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)][reply]
You are failing to distinguish between SIAs that are titled "List of ... called ..." (or similar) and SIAs that are titled with the ambiguous term. The former don't need inlinks checking (apart possibly from checking for inappropriate redirects), the latter (e.g. ship SIAs) should be checked for inappropriate inlinks. DexDor (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrectly reclassifying set indexes to be disambiguation pages merely for the purpose of getting members of the Disambiguation pages with Links project to mind them is misguided. It sets up unnecessary conflict and churning as some editors want to add detail and references appropriate for the SIA, while DAB-focused editors will want to remove all that. If incoming links to SIA pages should be checked, then let's do that separately. --doncram 19:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrectly reclassifying disambiguation pages as set indexes is even more harmful to the project IMO. The ONLY real reason set indexes came about was because some projects wanted to be able to document completeness of a category (such as mountains or ships) with redlinks and non-article entries if needed. Disambiguation pages are necessary to facilitate identifying and correcting mistaken links. Unless there is a legitimate reason that editors might want to link directly to the index at the base name with a presumption that the link does not require further disambiguation, then in my opinion a disambiguation is necessary and a set index is nothing more than a way to obscure links to these pages. older ≠ wiser 20:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that editors deliberately create SIA pages for the purpose of having these SIA pages receive inbound links that should not go to them? I can't believe that.
Otherwise, I partly agree with your concern, about wanting not to have disambiguation pages masquerading as SIAs just to avoid Dab requirements of formatting and having no inbound links. I think the guideline on SIAs should make a requirement that if there is "thing" that is reasonable for editors to link to, as you say, e.g. a generic "signal mountain" for "Signal Mountain", then that should be explained in the intro of an SIA. But not all current SIA topics are a "thing" that way. For both kinds of SIA, the SIA should be required to explain what its items have in common rather than just listing them. And that an SIA should be required to serve the disambiguation function that a dab would do, including that it should list 100% of the notable examples of its type and it should be organized in a reader-friendly way, and its inbound links should be done in a way that facilitates review by a systematic process (i.e. intentional links are to be distinguishable, perhaps by their linking to "topic (SIA)", which redirects to the SIA, akin to how inbound links to dabs work). If a page no longer serves the disambiguation function then I would say it is no longer an SIA and a disambiguation page probably must be created. (I suggest that serving the disambiguation function or not might be the best way to set the dividing line between SIAs and standalone lists.) Note we could use a category to indicate which SIAs are documented to be a "thing" and can properly have inbound links, vs. which SIAs should never have inbound links (whose topic is not a "thing" that anyone could refer to).
About this AFD, I think the Signal Mountains SIA should be required to meet the disambiguation function (including that "Signal Mountain" and "signal mountain" redirect to it, including adding the Mexican and Canadian and Mount Wilkinson ones to complete it out, and including using hatnotes as necessary). If the mountains editors are agreeing to that, which I think they are, then we've made enough progress and should move on to updating the SIA guideline. --doncram 23:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • our agreeing that we accept the wp:PRIMARYUSAGE for "Signal Mountain" to be usage as a mountain name (both as a common "signal mountain" usage for a generic mountain holding a signal station or suited for signalling from, and for specific mountains/hills known as "Signal Mountain")
  • our agreeing the SIA currently named "List of peaks named Signal Mountain" [would be moved to] "Signal Mountain", so that readers searching for a Signal Mountain will land at the SIA.
(or our agreeing alternatively agreeing [that the SIA can be at "List of peaks named Signal Mountain" or the like], with ("Signal Mountain" and variations like "signal mountain") being redirects to the SIA)
  • our agreeing that the SIA will be modified to fully serve the necessary disambiguating role, i.e. itself it must either
  • A) be complete and list all usages of "Signal Mountain" for any purpose including as a town-name and otherwise, and including peaks that are colloquially termed "Signal Mountain" but are not officially listed at that name by GNIS / USGS, or
  • B) itself cover the all mountain/hill type usages (i.e. all the formal and informal usages of "Signal Mountain" to refer to a peak or a ridge or a hill), and with hatnote links and otherwise cover the other usages adequately. (The SIA could have explicit hatnotes for major other usages and yet there might still be a need to keep a secondary "Signal Mountain (disambiguation)" page to cover minor usages of "Signal Mountain" and/or to meet administrative purpose of recording all the usages [and this would be one of the targets of hatnotes at the SIA])
If this is more-or-less agreed, this will require the SIA to be modified to be somewhat different than it was and different from any previous standard for mountain SIA articles. However it would be hard for a closure to specify in detail the changes needed, and people might come away believing differently about what this AFD determines. I am concerned that, in implementation, the changes I and others would see as necessary would seem too drastic and/or unnecessary and/or ugly or whatever, by the mountains editors. The devil is in the details.
The REQUEST is: while this AFD is still running, could the mountains editors and everyone else go ahead and transform the SIA (and any related pages) along the above lines? Note: both the dab and the SIA page have been edited already during this AFD. No administrative action is required to do this editing (besides deletion of existing dab or its name change to "Signal Mountain (disambiguation)" , and besides possible rename of the current SIA to "Signal Mountain" ). Going ahead without doing the name changes would be slightly confusing perhaps but would cause no significant inconvenience to readers during this transition IMO. If the modifications are done while this AFD is still open it will head off immediate disagreements at the SIA and its talk page, and head off the possibility that the main decisions here will be reversed and/or another AFD or RFC or other proceeding would be needed later. I'll pause for comments here, but if there are not objections and no one else takes the lead to modify the SIA along those lines, then I will begin trying myself in a few days. --doncram 16:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC) [18:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)][reply]
No. That you have failed to convince other editors to delete the SIA does not necessarily mean that the SIA and the dab should be merged. DexDor (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let my try to clarify what I believe DexDor meant by "No". I think he was saying "No" to your choice "A", which is a merge. I agree that "A" goes against the current guideline of keeping SIAs and dabs distinct. Back when SIAs were proposed, it was the clear and strong consensus that dabs are purely for navigation, and SIAs are list articles that are both informative and navigational. I believe that choice "B" is consistent with both the existing WP:SIA guideline, with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and with WP:TWODAB (think about it as a list article that is the primary topic, with two other secondary meanings).
As an example of a nicer SIA, I upgraded List of peaks named Kennedy. Please take a look at that. I can make List of peaks named Signal Mountain look like List of peaks named Kennedy, and add the hatnotes.
DexDor (and other editors), would you agree to a) reformatting the SIA, and b) adding the hatnotes?
As for discussing reformatting mountain SIAs, this is definitely not the place for proposing that. This should be done at WT:WikiProject Mountains. —hike395 (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
List of peaks named Kennedy is fine (although the lead sentence could perhaps be tweaked to something like "This is a list of mountains named "Kennedy""). However, Kennedy Peak should not be a redirect to that list; it should be a dab page (like the dab page at Signal Mountain which includes a link to the list). The consequence of it not being a dab page is that there are (currently) loads of inlinks which should be linking to articles about a specific mountain (or be a redlink). I'm not sure what hatnote(s) you are proposing. DexDor (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: Re Signal Mountain: there would be a hatnote that reads ((about|mountain peaks|town in Tennessee|Signal Mountain, Tennessee|town in California|Mount Signal, California))

Re Kennedy Peak: I'm unclear about what you're suggesting. You want a dab page with one entry that is List of peaks named Kennedy? Having a dab page with one entry seems to go against WP:D and WP:MOSDAB. Or do you want a dab page with only the blue links from List of peaks named Kennedy? That would be redundant to List of peaks named Kennedy, which can serve as a perfectly fine navigational page.

Isn't there a way to fix the tools (DPLBot?) to notify people when they link to an SIA? I would think that people shouldn't link to SIAs (unless they are linked from a different list article, like Lists of lists). It seems better to fix the tools, rather than make one-line or redundant dabs. —hike395 (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just fixed the inlinks to Kennedy Peak(e.g. [1]) and changed that into a dab page (so anybody who links to it now will be warned that they've linked to a dab page). It performs a different function to the SIA, and even if there is a bit of redundancy I don't see that as being a problem (after all, the text on dab page entries normally duplicates some of the info on the pages it links to). Modifying (I'm not sure the word "fix" is correct) DPLBot to also look at (some?) inlinks to SIAs might be useful, but would further blur the distinction between dabs and SIAs so should only be done after careful consideration. There's also things like the group of editors who industrially fix inlinks to dabs - they don't (afaik) generally work on SIAs. DexDor (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
wp:DPL is the project whose editors who industrially fix inlinks to dabs. SIAs do perform a disambiguating function, and their inbound links should be reviewed. As DexDor notes and as I noted at 00:09, 16 August 2015 above, there were a number of inbound links to List of peaks named Kennedy, and it is increasingly well known that other SIAs have inbound links that should be redirected to more specific targets. A systematic reviewing process could be done by wp:DPL, if they (including me) choose to expand their scope, or by creating a similar project. Either way, the distinctions between dabs vs. SIAs vs. list-articles need to be clarified. (Brief version: dabs provide only enough information to support disambiguation and inbound links should be eliminated; SIAs have introductory text and provide disambiguation and carry more information than dab pages are allowed. Items on a dab page must meet article-notability standards; the standard for inclusion of items on an SIA page can be lower, the same standard as for list-article items. SIAs can sometimes be the deliberate target of an inbound link (rarely for SIAs about mountains, but perhaps a link to "signal mountains" could come to the SIA page, if its text supports "signal mountain" being a valid thing). If an SIA no longer serves the disambiguation role (clearly the case if a disambiguation page has to be set up) then it is no longer an SIA, it is a regular article (which includes list-articles) and its topic must meet wp:GNG notability guidelines. IMO a non-SIA "list of mountains named X" would have to be supported by reliable sources providing substantial coverage of "mountains named X" as a topic on its own, which may be difficult to find.) And tools need to be set up: DPLBot and its associated reports would need to be modified or a separate SIABot and associated reports would have to be created. This AFD is a step on the way. --doncram 18:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This version of "List of peaks named Signal Mountain" is close to what I am looking for, as an example of an SIA, the Signal Mountain one, edited to serve the disambiguating function. And it is complemented by and this version of "Signal Mountain" which should be moved to "Signal Mountain (disambiguation)"]. The changes add to what was in a simple WikiProject Mountains old-style SIA. They don't take anything away.

To serve its disambiguation purpose, i.e. to help arriving readers look up the specific "Signal Mountain" they seek, the SIA has been edited to be comprehensive in coverage (includes Mexico, Canada) and given a TOC. The U.S. section is a mix of a list and a table right now, perhaps with some duplication, and could be better. I understand Hike395 is working on a better prototype for tables of mountains so I did not try to edit this section very much. IMO any table should allow for a notes column so that text identifying the places, equivalent to the often-very-useful text in disambiguation pages, can be included. I added some text about individual mountains here and there, including in photo captions, that I might have preferred to put into a text column in the table. I did add some photos, although I am not sure they help readers here like they would help readers trying to look up a specific flower species, say. In this process I am realizing that there is a big gray area for any guideline on SIAs: how do you define what content is appropriate or not. Certainly information that arguably aids in the lookup process, such as elevations and prominence and location, is okay here. But are photos of mountains helpful in identifying which mountain you want? And are interesting factoids about places helpful or merely candy. But a reader could arguably be looking for whichever mountain it is that has that factoid. E.g. "yes, this is the one that i was looking for, the one that Sherman stood upon when surveying some big city he was aiming to capture. How can a guideline distinguish? I don't know exactly how to draw a line, but there has to be some general rule that a page cannot become bloated with so much that it is becoming hard for a reader to perform their lookup. I think wikilinks should be restricted to ones that seem to serve the disambiguation purpose, i.e. that go to articles the reader might want to check in their looking-up process. Wikilinks for other than the individual mountains can be allowed but should be used sparingly, more sparingly than is done in good editing elsewhere. --doncram 21:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion matters a lot I think because you are very experienced in disambiguation. But could you please continue and clarify what you suggest for a complete solution? Because I think that your choice, which would have readers looking for a Signal Mountain arriving at a disambiguation that is not the SIA, is not part of a stable solution.
Just guessing, but if you would have readers arriving at the disambiguation page that is not the SIA, then you would want them to be given all the mountains named "Signal Mountain" on that page? Your edit "per MOSDAB" at the non-SIA page just added just two of the bluelink "Signal Mountains" (the Atlanta area one and the Canada one). Am I correct to assume you would also want to add the other two bluelink ones: Signal Mountain (Wyoming) and Signal Mountain (Vermont)? (Maybe you didn't see them below, in the table. Sorry, the U.S. section of the SIA currently is disorganized, with some items in a list segment and others below that in the table, and perhaps some duplication. Let's assume the ones above will be merged into the table.)
And then you would also create a separate disambiguation page for "Signal Peak" as well? (There was not one before. You would have it include the bluelinks Signal Peak (Orange County, California), Signal Peak (Utah), Signal Peak (Humboldt County, California), Guadalupe Peak, also known as Signal Peak.)
What about the redlinks in the SIA? A straight, traditional disambiguation perspective would say each of them should be added to the disambiguation pages, too, each using their state's list-article like List of mountains and hills of Arizona by height as a supporting bluelink.
And then what purpose does the SIA serve? It would then not be performing the disambiguation function. And it has no sources supporting its topic, "List of things named X". Then on what basis would you think it is valid? So do you !vote Keep or Delete on that question of this AFD? I really want to hear you take a position on all of these questions, especially the last. --doncram 03:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the disambiguation page should include all existing articles with relevant content. SIA aren't disambiguation pages. They have some similarities to disambiguation pages, but some wikiprojects wanted to be able to include various non-disambiguation content (e.g., multiple blue links per entry, references, extended prose explanations/descriptions). A disambiguation page for Signal Peak might be a good idea. While I can appreciate your attempt to make the original list article more like an actual article, I think the tabular format is in general easier to use. I would not include entries on the dab page for every one of the entries on the SIA. There is no assumption that every peak is individually notable (apart from inclusion in a list). older ≠ wiser 11:32, 21 August 2015 (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.
More