Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What do you know

What do you know

What do you know (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is a disambiguation page for just two articles and should be deleted per WP:ONEOTHER. Kibblebrain (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment—is the link to Whad'Ya Know? close enough to merit disambiguation? It seems plausible to me that someone looking for the radio show may search for the article by the standard spelling of the phrase as opposed to the nonstandard spelling used in the show's title. —Em-as-in-emily (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Probably not, for two reasons:

  Going off of pageviews, it's clear that Whad'Ya Know? would be the primary topic for the phrasing.

  If Whad'Ya Know? is treated as the primary topic, the article title is different enough to naturally disambiguate itself per WP:DABSTYLEVAR. Brain of Britain then would get a hatnote redirect to the TV series.

  Kibblebrain (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  That makes sense. In that case, I recommend delete per nom. —Em-as-in-emily (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  That conclusion is sadly a complete non sequitur. Yes, it's naturally disambiguated, but that doesn't imply that it stops being ambiguous with the base term, or that it stops being plausible that some readers search for it through the base term.

  I went looking for clues in the statistics if the latter happens, and it's actually right there in the meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream archive - in the last twelve months, there were several with identifiable clickstreams from the list towards the 1985 comedy:

  clickstream-enwiki-2025-04.tsv:

  • What_do_you_know Whad'Ya_Know? link 13
  • total: 13 to 1 identified destinations

  clickstream-enwiki-2025-05.tsv:

  • total: to 0 identified destinations

  clickstream-enwiki-2025-06.tsv:

  • What_do_you_know Whad'Ya_Know? link 12
  • total: 12 to 1 identified destinations

  clickstream-enwiki-2025-07.tsv:

  • What_do_you_know Whad'Ya_Know? link 10
  • total: 10 to 1 identified destinations

  clickstream-enwiki-2025-08.tsv:

  • total: to 0 identified destinations

  clickstream-enwiki-2025-09.tsv:

  • total: to 0 identified destinations

  clickstream-enwiki-2025-10.tsv:

  • total: to 0 identified destinations

  clickstream-enwiki-2025-11.tsv:

  • total: to 0 identified destinations

  clickstream-enwiki-2025-12.tsv:

  • total: to 0 identified destinations

  clickstream-enwiki-2026-01.tsv:

  • total: to 0 identified destinations

  clickstream-enwiki-2026-02.tsv:

  • What_do_you_know Whad'Ya_Know? link 10
  • total: 10 to 1 identified destinations

  clickstream-enwiki-2026-03.tsv:

  • total: to 0 identified destinations

  There's not a lot of it, and it's not clear if it's a primary topic because this is too close to the anonymization threshold. But the fact that it's observable, while nothing else is, certainly does indicate that the listing is pertinent, our placement of this link in the See also section does not match actual reader behavior and should be corrected. I'll go do that now.

  In turn, this means we need to keep this list. It's obviously useful to readers. --Joy (talk) 07:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  In the recent page history, I found several editors were modifying style and formatting. Each of the changes seemed subtle, but the combined sum of these recent edits made this look like a problematic disambiguation page. I would definitely recommend anyone trying to examine the situation to try to look at it while focusing on reader behavior, not editor behavior, as is the spirit of the WP:D guideline. --Joy (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  In light of your edits, the dabpage looks a lot better now. On a separate note, all listings use title case Wha...Know?, which just brings the situation back to the RM. Keep per Joy's rationale Kibblebrain (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  Changing my !vote to keep after Joy's edits and reasoning. —Em-as-in-emily (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:HEY. This page does not resemble the version nominated for deletion. Joy has vastly improved the page (and folks have started coming along to provide additional entries). BusterD (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

The consensus is unanimously keep at this point. Kibblebrain (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kibblebrain: Are you withdrawing the AfD? Natg 19 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes Kibblebrain (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

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.