Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabor sisters

=[[:Gabor sisters]]=

:{{la|1=Gabor sisters}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Gabor sisters}})

Redundant WP:CONTENTFORK. All three sisters already have rich articles, at Zsa Zsa Gabor, Eva Gabor, and Magda Gabor. Having a separate page about them collectively serves no encyclopedic purpose and is highly aberrant. "Gabor sisters" is not a band/troupe of any sort – i.e. it is not like The Jackson 5 or even like Marx Brothers. It's simply a description of incidental familial relationship. We do sometimes have family articles, like Barrymore family, but not for just some siblings, versus something more dynastic. Gabor sisters should exist as a page, for navigational purposes, but simply as a WP:Disambiguation page with three bullet-list items in it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Theatre, United States of America, Hungary, Popular culture, Actors and filmmakers, and Women. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Best, --Discographer (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nomination rationale as an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. jolielover♥talk 18:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Keep: The table about their appearances together makes sense and a dedicated page is not shocking precisely per the guideline about content forks (not all of them are bad and repeating content in a different format is Ok) -Mushy Yank. 20:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
:Please note that the nominator is not arguing for deletion but for a disamb or a WP:SETINDEX -Mushy Yank. 20:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
::We can take Mushy Yank's !vote as "keep it as-is". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Or not. -Mushy Yank. 08:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
:The presence of appearances-together information in the nominated, erstwhile article is information that can be merged into the separate articles, e.g. as a sentence stating appearances together or as a column or footnote in filmography tables. It is not a defensible rationale to keep an entire content-fork page, especially because the information's format can be given in any way in the separate articles, and nothing about the C-fork page's formatting is particular to it (that is, it is not a "list of" article or other special type that calls for a particular format). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
::The whole table? In WHICH article? In the three? Not a very elegant solution!!! In a FOOTNOTE?? Even worse. {{tq| It is not a defensible rationale to keep an entire content-fork page, especially because the information's format can be given in any way in the separate articles}}. Yes. It. Is. Just read the guideline you yourself cite in your rationale [which clearly states "{{tq|Gabor sisters should exist as a page, for navigational purposes, but simply as a WP:Disambiguation page with three bullet-list items in it. }} by the way (Emphasis mine)] To save you the trouble of reading it, I'll cite it for you: {{Talk quote block|Content forks that are different page types covering the same subject are acceptable. Articles are not the only type of page on Wikipedia that cover subjects. Other subject-based page types include outlines, navigation footer templates, navigation sidebar templates, categories, portals, glossaries, indexes, lists, etc. Each type is designed to provide particular benefits. However, they, including corresponding articles, should not contradict each other, and any contradictory statements should be corrected or removed.}} My !vote is clearly guideline-based and takes into account what you as nominator are saying. So that your comments on my !vote do not strike me as accurate nor consistant. -Mushy Yank. 09:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Delete, unless Mushy Yank wants to turn this into a family article like Terry family or Barrymore family. If not, little would be lost by deleting this now, as the family members' articles will remain there with all the content and sources in them already. The table of joint appearances could go in one of their articles if no family article is made. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Mitford family practically is an article on the six Mitford sisters. The family background takes up all of two paragraphs, and the article probably would be titled "Mitford sisters" were there not also one brother, who only gets a bullet point. A group of sisters doesn't have to be a "band/troupe" to be notable. Ham II (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
:Absolutely. Thank you very much. -Mushy Yank. 09:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)