Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pitt

Pitt was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep

totally unnecessary disambig. page. i doubt anything on the page would be searched for by "Pitt" only. Lachatdelarue 15:14, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep reasonable disambig page; someone might only know the surname of the British prime ministers, for example. Wikipedia is not paper. Dunc_Harris|☺ 15:17, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree that it should be kept. I know a lot of people on the East coast of the U.S. would know the University of Pittsburgh only as "Pitt", but if Pitt was simply a redirect for that, then people looking for prime ministers as Dunc_Harris suggested may be very confused. My vote: Keep Skyler 15:43, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
Keep- all of the ministers and the school are routinely referred to just as "Pitt" in many cases, and it often is not clear which one is meant unless a specific date is provided (among the PMs, anyway). I've ued this disambig page myself when reading through historical sources that just refer to the "Pitt cabinet," and I couldn't remember which Pitt was which years. Definitely do not redirect to the Uni- if someone was looking for the politician Pitt the Younger, they would then have to click through University of Pittsburgh, then Pittsburgh, then William Pitt the Elder, then finally get to William Pitt the Younger; this is far too long a track to go through to get to a major historical figure. -FZ 16:18, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep, even though we don't want a disambiguation page for every surname and don't want everyone whose last name is Pitt added to this one. Jallan 17:13, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep: The two William Pitts alone justify this, but the Pitt as U. Pittsburg adds to the confusion. Someone not from the US might be confused by a reference to "a guy who came from Pitt" and need the disambiguation. Geogre 17:41, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep - I even added another entry to the page. Elf-friend 21:49, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep - while I would not recommened such disambig pages for many surnames, I've often heard the two Prime Ministers William Pitt referred too simply as "Pitt the Younger" and "Pitt the Elder". In fact I don't know that I could have told you their first names were both William without looking it up. —Stormie 00:56, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Useful disambig. Andrewa 01:37, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Looks fine to me. Witness the following quotation, which is indeed from a humorous work, but which I am not making up. Really. It is from "Invictus: A Regurgitation" by Ian Wallach, in the collection Hopalong-Freud and Other Parodies. In a detailed criticism of the lines "Out of the night the covers me,/Black as the Pit from pole to pole," he writes:

Night, he tells us, is "black as the Pit," but since he does not qualify the word "Pit," he makes subtle use of at least four of the current available ambiguities. What kind of "Pit"—peach, orchestra, William? We can eliminate William since he has two t's. But what of that kind of pit which we associate with a declivity? The reader, as the poet intends, assumes the latter.

So, "Pitt" as an ambiguity is recognized by at least one somewhat authoritative source... [[User:Dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:01, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.