Talk:MBB
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Improper entry
[edit]DAB pages are links to actual articles, not directories, and not lists defining acronyms. If the acronym MBB for McKinsey, BCG, Bain is truly notable, then it should be notable enough for an article about the term. If it's not notable enough for an article, it should not appear on the DAB page. - BilCat (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Your claim My response "DAB pages are links to actual articles" Are you claiming that McKinsey & Company, Boston Consulting Group, and Bain & Company are not "actual articles"? "not directories, and not lists defining acronyms" Then you should put this article and all other acronym disambiguation articles (e.g. DPW, ABC, TNT, etc.) up for deletion as they are all "lists defining acronyms". "If it's not notable enough for an article, it should not appear on the DAB page." Clearly all three articles, McKinsey & Company, Boston Consulting Group, and Bain & Company, are about notable subjects, so your complaint can't be about notability. From this I infer that you are insisting that each entry in this disambiguation article reference only one article. For that I will refer you to the bottom of MOS:DAB, which clearly states "there may be pages in which a good reason exists to use another way; so ignore these guidelines if doing so will be more helpful to readers than following them."
- All those acronyms should have actual article about the acronym itself, or the meaning of its definition. You are missing the point entirely of what a DAB page is for. DAb pages are lists of actual articles that people might be trying to find information on, not definition of acronyms, which is all your entry is. Yes, the companies themselves are notable, but that is not the same thing as the acronym being notable. If the acronym "MBB" refering to these companies is notable, then you should have no problem wrting a shrot article about the use of the acronym, and why its notable. - BilCat (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)