Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sardar Patel (disambiguation)

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. There's a lot of support for renaming too, but it's not unanimous among keep supporting editors, and this isn't the right forum for that. Editors are encouraged to continue a move discussion on the article's talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 02:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Patel (disambiguation)[edit]

Sardar Patel (disambiguation) (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)

Bad use of disambiguation page. When someone says "Sardar Patel", they unambiguously refer to Vallabhbhai Patel and not to random colleges or universities named after him. This may have been better off as List of places named after Vallabhbhai Patel (with much more information to be added) rather than a disambiguation page. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 10:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion, no objection to renaming. I am not sure that they always do refer to Vallabhbhai Patel and not to one of the many colleges or universities named after him. I agree that the main topic of Sardar Patel should be the politician (so it is good that there is a redirect from Sardar Patel to Vallabhbhai Patel). But that does not mean that there should not be some kind of disambiguation page. I have no objection to the disambiguation page being moved List of places named after Vallabhbhai Patel.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe its just an Indian thing, but I've never seen anyone say "Sardar Patel", "Pandit Nehru", or "Mahatma Gandhi" to refer to things named after them. If its a college or university or road, people always be specific like "Gandhi Road", "Nehru Planetarium", etc., the terms in itself are always fully unambiguous. And no one can prove otherwise. I also don't mind moving it to the red-linked title, but it being a dab page is unnecessary because of the scope of WP:DAB. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 15:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this appears to be a valid disambig page. How is this different from George Washington (disambiguation)? Like the biographical article George Washington, Sardar Patel goes to the right place and the disambig page collects other subjects with the same name such as universities. - Indefensible (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is an WP:OSE argument, because as I said above, the term "Sardar Patel" is unambiguous. Plus, as Clarityfiend notes that it all is already in the article, so there is no need for a dab page anyway. Again, if someone wishes to split that portion out and create a list article, that's fine, but imo dab is a bad choice due to lack of ambiguity. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 07:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be the other way around in my opinion. Rather than listing every university named after him in the biographical article which is unnecessary clutter, they should all be listed on the disambig page which Sardar Patel can link to. Using other articles for comparison is also not without merit, we have precedent and standards. George Washington is rated a Good Article too, if anything we should be using a similar rule in this case to match. And if all of the disambig entries for George Washington are listed on his page, can you imagine how cluttered it would be? We should apply similar guidelines to Sardar Patel. - Indefensible (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an indefensible argument. The number of things named in honor of Washington is huge. Those named after Patel fit in his article; there would have to be more to warrant a standalone list. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even you admitted the subject "is a valid disambiguation page" above. Where then is the cutoff for a list to fit versus getting a disambiguation page? - Indefensible (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a big difference. Dab pages are for (most often) unrelated things that go by the same title; these, however, are closely related. Dab pages also serve aas navigational aids. There's no need for that here, as they're in Patel's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Main point though is the disambig page is valid. Your objection seems primarily based on length, however Sardar Patel is not a short article either and could use clean up. There is nothing wrong having this page, it should be kept. - Indefensible (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to List of places named after Vallabhbhai Patel, and undabbify. As a dab page this is arguably proscribed by WP:PARTIAL since indeed none of these places seem to be routinely called just "Sardar Patel" (which distinguishes this case from George Washington). Even if not strictly proscribed this is definitely a bit out of step with normal disambiguation practice and feels more like it should just be a list. -- Visviva (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A "place" is a location, but not all of the entries on that page currently are places. - Indefensible (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Visviva and nom. A lot of these are WP:PTMs, and don't qualify for a DAB page; if the proposed title doesn't work, a title of List of places and institutions named after Vallabhbhai Patel might be better. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Deletion has not been proposed, nor is this nomination procedural. This type of concern could generally be handled on article talk pages, followed by an eventual WP:BOLD move. —siroχo 19:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And I do recognize the irony of "speedy" keeping a discussion that's weeks old already, just trying to make my comment clear on what I view the right process for such things is. —siroχo 19:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, technically I did propose a deletion with a fallback to move. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 19:35, 7 July 2023 (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.