Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurghiu
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gurghiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This disambiguation page does not disambiguate anything; the Mureş commune is the only one that's called "Gurghiu" exactly. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn. I still believe that Dahn's argument is inconsistent with the current guidelines. However, after reading Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Partial title matches - should they really be excluded?, it seems that the problem is with the guideline itself, and not with any particular page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The rationale is absurd. Even if one redirects "Gurghiu" to the commune, we could still do with a Gurghiu (disambiguation) page for the other notions, which, yes, are referred to as "just Gurghiu". The main purpose of disambig is for someone who is only familiar with one of those uses to be able to find it among homonyms. In short, I really don't see the point of this AfD. Dahn (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists. "Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title, or links that include the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices." As for your comment, "which, yes, are referred to as 'just Gurghiu,'" I could not find any sources showing that the river is referred to "just Gurghiu." Compare: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (3rd nomination). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's quite pedantic and a way too narrow interpretation of a guideline. As I have indicated, and per the guideline, here there is a significant risk of confusion, similar to countless other pages, including America, Atacama (disambiguation), etc. With 'I could not find any sources showing that the river is referred to "just Gurghiu" ', we're going into the realm of splitting hairs and borderline sophistry - what is the expectation here? a source that would say exactly that "Gurghiu River is also referred to as just Gurghiu"? Beyond it being instantly apparent that all rivers are commonly referred to solely with their name? The main point here is that somebody who needs to find a certain Gurghiu, say, from an ambiguous text reference, should have a single place to start, regardless of how much prior knowledge he or she may have - unless they have intimate knowledge of Romanian geography, there is a clear-cut "significant risk of confusion". Really: that is what disambigs are supposed to address. And I cannot really compare this to WalMart, since I can't reconstitute the redlink and the debate doesn't give me a clue as to what it contained. Dahn (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It contained Walmart (neologism), Walmart (golf tournament), Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, Wal-Mart bill, Wal-Mart camel, Wal-Mart intercom codes. (A link to the history, solely in the interest of GFDL compliance.) Generally, works with a subtitle are often referred to by just their main title. So, yes, we do have many things called "Wal-Mart" colloquially, but that's not the point of a disambiguation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, rivers do not "use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term." Sure, you can call the Mississippi River "The Mississippi," but when will you have an article on the river called Mississippi? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, whadya know? Dahn (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that argument is like WP:WAX. Suppose two people have similar notability. Because one of them has an article, the other should also have an article, regardless of whether the first person is notable. (Maybe the first person just wasn't nominated for deletion?) Just because the disambiguation page exists does not mean that it conforms to disambiguation page guidelines. Of course, I'm not suggesting that Mississippi (disambiguation) be deleted; rather, stuff like Mississippi Valley State University blatantly violates the same-title rule, and therefore should be removed from the page. From personal experience, I have found that the disambiguation guidelines have not been followed rigorously until recently, so that explains the problem with the Mississippi page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but this is the case where both other notions are/may be referred to as just Gurghiu. This, within the example you mention, is not consistent with the Mississippi Valley State University example, but with Mississippi, Mississippi River, Mississippi River System, Mississippi Territory, Mississippi County, Arkansas, Mississippi River (Ontario), Mississippi Sound, the countless USSes etc. (in fact, it is apparently more consistent with the guideline than some of those are). So, yes, we may theoretically argue about the theoretical validity of disambiguation guidelines not having been followed rigorously until recently, but that adds very little to Mississippi (disambiguation) and nothing to the page we're discussing. Dahn (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that argument is like WP:WAX. Suppose two people have similar notability. Because one of them has an article, the other should also have an article, regardless of whether the first person is notable. (Maybe the first person just wasn't nominated for deletion?) Just because the disambiguation page exists does not mean that it conforms to disambiguation page guidelines. Of course, I'm not suggesting that Mississippi (disambiguation) be deleted; rather, stuff like Mississippi Valley State University blatantly violates the same-title rule, and therefore should be removed from the page. From personal experience, I have found that the disambiguation guidelines have not been followed rigorously until recently, so that explains the problem with the Mississippi page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, whadya know? Dahn (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's quite pedantic and a way too narrow interpretation of a guideline. As I have indicated, and per the guideline, here there is a significant risk of confusion, similar to countless other pages, including America, Atacama (disambiguation), etc. With 'I could not find any sources showing that the river is referred to "just Gurghiu" ', we're going into the realm of splitting hairs and borderline sophistry - what is the expectation here? a source that would say exactly that "Gurghiu River is also referred to as just Gurghiu"? Beyond it being instantly apparent that all rivers are commonly referred to solely with their name? The main point here is that somebody who needs to find a certain Gurghiu, say, from an ambiguous text reference, should have a single place to start, regardless of how much prior knowledge he or she may have - unless they have intimate knowledge of Romanian geography, there is a clear-cut "significant risk of confusion". Really: that is what disambigs are supposed to address. And I cannot really compare this to WalMart, since I can't reconstitute the redlink and the debate doesn't give me a clue as to what it contained. Dahn (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (unindented) Then tell me why Wal-Mart (disambiguation) was deleted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but now you're the one veering into "other stuff happened", and asking me to account for what others have decided. My guess from glancing at the links was that it clearly included spin-offs from the main article, things which happen to relate to Wal-Mart in some way, and not homonyms. It is therefore a false analogy (like the Mississippi Valley State University argument), which is why I opted not to get these wires crossed the first time you brought it up. But if you insist. Dahn (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists. "Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title, or links that include the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices." As for your comment, "which, yes, are referred to as 'just Gurghiu,'" I could not find any sources showing that the river is referred to "just Gurghiu." Compare: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (3rd nomination). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per Dahn. Joe Chill (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dahn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It looks like a valid disambiguation page that distinguishes an article about river from one about a settlement. This could probably be handled quite easily with hatnotes and redirects, but there is a redlinked third article that this page also potentially accommodates.Synchronism (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2009 (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.