Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Moshava
- 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 in compliance with MOS:DABMENTION, with no prejudice against incidental deletion if the extant article is moved to the base name and the mention hatnoted from there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Camp Moshava[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Camp Moshava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A disambiguisation page, which only lists a single “camp Moshava” with an article. The disambiguisation page seems more of a cover for a directory than an attempt to distinguish between various pages. Kleuske (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep This is an appropriate disambiguation page per Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Alansohn (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete WP:D
It is necessary to provide links and disambiguation pages so that readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek.
This page has only one link and does not aide in navigation. The nominator rightly states that a disambiguation page is not a directory with no links. Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC) - Keep Valid dab page per WP:NOTCLEANUP. I fixed the first sentence and removed the non-notable list items. StonyBrook (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- You have eliminated some items and left two items...one of the items is a redirect, so not quite sure a Disamb page is needed. Lightburst (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have edited the dab page further, so that I believe it is now in compliance with WP:DABMENTION, where the existing redirect was discarded in favor of a section pipe. This dab page serves a purpose to differentiate these 2 camps for the reader, which are entirely unrelated except in name. While Afd did bring about these improvements, it should not have been the vehicle to achieve this, and I think the nomination should be speedily closed as keep. Note: It seems pretty clear that no primary topic exists for this term, so a hatnote would be inappropriate. StonyBrook (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- You have eliminated some items and left two items...one of the items is a redirect, so not quite sure a Disamb page is needed. Lightburst (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Appropriate disambiguation page per Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, the second disambiguation doesn't count for inclusion on a disambiguation page IMO because it isn't either "the main topic of an article" or "a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic" as the disambiguation article says the purpose of them is. Therefore, if the disambiguation criteria are followed this should be deleted due to being a single article disambiguation page. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- I couldn't find that rule in WP:D; in any event, Camp Moshava is definitely a subtopic of Habonim Dror - in fact it probably was a full article that was previously deleted. In MOS:DABPIPING an example that is given is Switch (disambiguation), where one of the entries is for the non-blue-linked song Switch listed on The Scream (album), where the article does not discuss the song at all. StonyBrook (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- I quoted from the first paragraph after where Disambiguation is in bold. Importantly it says the subtopic should be "covered" by the article. "either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic." I wouldn't call a title without any details being "covered." There's still notability guidelines for what should or shouldn't be included in an article and the notability of red links or their inclusion in lists is a whole different subject. If it did have an article at one point but it was deleted due to lack of notability that speaks even more to why it shouldn't be included in a disambiguation page. Especially if it's the only other thing being linked in it and is being used as a reason to keep the disambiguation. Which is also why I don't think Switch (disambiguation) is a relevant example. As its already an established disambiguation page with many things listed in on it and the articles existence doesn't hinge on the one red link. Btw, the nutshell for WP:D says disambiguation is necessary so that readers can "quickly navigate to the article they seek." It's highly unlikely that if someone types in Camp Moshava that they are seeking Habonim Dror. Whereas, there's a pretty good chance that they are looking for at least of the things in the Switch (disambiguation) article. Even if one of those things might be a red link. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the clarification. But to repeat, I see nothing in that quote that prohibits the second entry, which is indeed a subtopic just as much as the song is. To answer your other points, it is not a just red link, the entry is a properly formatted blue link to Habonim Dror. I don't see why this org's Camp Moshava is any less of a searchable entry; the fact that no article exists is irrelevant because the important information is in the target article. I know of no policy that prevents a dab page for having only 2 entries, even if one is only a secondary link (see Caffeine Dream for one example of many). StonyBrook (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Except I wasn't arguing that it wasn't a subtopic, my point was its not "covered" in the other article. Which is why I put so much on the part about there not being any details about it. Which WP:D says is the point in a disambiguation. It's not just to create a list of quasi fake forwards about things that aren't notable otherwise. The Caffeine Dream disambiguation article is a perfect example of that. Not only are individual songs rarely notable on their, for their own article or even being mentioned, but Caffeine Dream isn't even mentioned in the article the disambiguation goes to. So it's pretty much worthless. Except as a way to mention something that doesn't meet notability standards and wouldn't be otherwise. This isn't an encyclopedia of everything. That includes every song by an artist or every youth camp. That standard applies as much to a disambiguation as it does to normal articles. Using other articles other articles as examples of how we should do things is a really bad standard anyway. We could easily find similar articles to any AfD here and use it as an excuse to vote keep. The only thing that's relevant is the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean about Caffeine Dream not being mentioned in the articles listed, they clearly are. As to your point about notability, WP:DABMENTION disagrees with you because it requires just that, only a mention. StonyBrook (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- It's not mentioned in the Scream (band) article. Maybe it is on the other one, but I have serious doubts that article is notable (same for the band). So, it's not really relevant. Not that it would be anyway. Since like I said, it's not really relevant because you can compare any AfD to any other article as a way to cherry pick that it should be kept. Also, WP:DABMENTION isn't relevant either since it's a style guide and not an editing guideline. Those are completely different things. Style guides don't have anything to do with notability and that's what we care about here. Not how to write something properly. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- We will have to agree to disagree. I think it is unlikely that the style guide would be encouraging policy violations. Note, Caffeine Dream is not mentioned in Scream (band), it is mentioned in the album link (Fumble (album). Whatever. StonyBrook (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- It's not mentioned in the Scream (band) article. Maybe it is on the other one, but I have serious doubts that article is notable (same for the band). So, it's not really relevant. Not that it would be anyway. Since like I said, it's not really relevant because you can compare any AfD to any other article as a way to cherry pick that it should be kept. Also, WP:DABMENTION isn't relevant either since it's a style guide and not an editing guideline. Those are completely different things. Style guides don't have anything to do with notability and that's what we care about here. Not how to write something properly. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean about Caffeine Dream not being mentioned in the articles listed, they clearly are. As to your point about notability, WP:DABMENTION disagrees with you because it requires just that, only a mention. StonyBrook (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Except I wasn't arguing that it wasn't a subtopic, my point was its not "covered" in the other article. Which is why I put so much on the part about there not being any details about it. Which WP:D says is the point in a disambiguation. It's not just to create a list of quasi fake forwards about things that aren't notable otherwise. The Caffeine Dream disambiguation article is a perfect example of that. Not only are individual songs rarely notable on their, for their own article or even being mentioned, but Caffeine Dream isn't even mentioned in the article the disambiguation goes to. So it's pretty much worthless. Except as a way to mention something that doesn't meet notability standards and wouldn't be otherwise. This isn't an encyclopedia of everything. That includes every song by an artist or every youth camp. That standard applies as much to a disambiguation as it does to normal articles. Using other articles other articles as examples of how we should do things is a really bad standard anyway. We could easily find similar articles to any AfD here and use it as an excuse to vote keep. The only thing that's relevant is the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the clarification. But to repeat, I see nothing in that quote that prohibits the second entry, which is indeed a subtopic just as much as the song is. To answer your other points, it is not a just red link, the entry is a properly formatted blue link to Habonim Dror. I don't see why this org's Camp Moshava is any less of a searchable entry; the fact that no article exists is irrelevant because the important information is in the target article. I know of no policy that prevents a dab page for having only 2 entries, even if one is only a secondary link (see Caffeine Dream for one example of many). StonyBrook (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- I quoted from the first paragraph after where Disambiguation is in bold. Importantly it says the subtopic should be "covered" by the article. "either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic." I wouldn't call a title without any details being "covered." There's still notability guidelines for what should or shouldn't be included in an article and the notability of red links or their inclusion in lists is a whole different subject. If it did have an article at one point but it was deleted due to lack of notability that speaks even more to why it shouldn't be included in a disambiguation page. Especially if it's the only other thing being linked in it and is being used as a reason to keep the disambiguation. Which is also why I don't think Switch (disambiguation) is a relevant example. As its already an established disambiguation page with many things listed in on it and the articles existence doesn't hinge on the one red link. Btw, the nutshell for WP:D says disambiguation is necessary so that readers can "quickly navigate to the article they seek." It's highly unlikely that if someone types in Camp Moshava that they are seeking Habonim Dror. Whereas, there's a pretty good chance that they are looking for at least of the things in the Switch (disambiguation) article. Even if one of those things might be a red link. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- I couldn't find that rule in WP:D; in any event, Camp Moshava is definitely a subtopic of Habonim Dror - in fact it probably was a full article that was previously deleted. In MOS:DABPIPING an example that is given is Switch (disambiguation), where one of the entries is for the non-blue-linked song Switch listed on The Scream (album), where the article does not discuss the song at all. StonyBrook (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per Lightburst. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2020 (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.