Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosut (disambiguation)

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. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 00:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bosut (disambiguation)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod declined, but by adding WP:PTMs, which I reverted now. Multiple things are named after Bosut, but aren't referred to as simply Bosut themselves. The hatnote already covers the ambiguity between the river and the village otherwise. Joy (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Joy (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly a WP:ONEOTHER dab. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several other valid entries, now added. Pinging Joy and NmWTfs85lXusaybq as it has changed since their comments. Boleyn (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're using the term Bosut to refer to topics that are not named that way mononymously. What are the references saying that anyone refers to either the Bosut culture or the Bosut Forest as just "Bosut"? This is not generally ambiguous. The original terms that these English translations are based on are all in adjectival or appositive form, the river is the primary topic and these are some features found around it and are named after it, but there is no ambiguity. I see you also since found some obscure football club, which is probably why it's a red link and will remain so for the forseeable future because the notability is doubtful. It's plausible that such a football club is referred to just as "Bosut", but in the case of such minor topics it would be nice to see a modicum of proof first. This sounds to me like scraping the bottom of the barrel to keep this, the average English reader isn't going to experience much ambiguity either way... --Joy (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example, a quick google brings up a Serbian news article from this year which consistently uses forms of the noun "Bosut" to refer to the village, but then consistently uses "OFK Bosut" to refer to the club, never once using it ambiguously. --Joy (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Joy would withdraw this nomination, I'm stricking my vote. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I still think Boleyn's interpretation of WP:PTM here is wrong, but I don't want to perpetuate an edit war by repeating edits like [1] or [2]. --Joy (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you fine with OFK Bosut, Joy? This entry is blue linked by List of football clubs in Vojvodina and wasn't removed in your edit, which could warrant this dab. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the sub-thread directly above, I don't think we need a list for that until there's a modicum of proof that anyone actually uses is ambiguously. --Joy (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The village, football club and newly added minesweeper are clearcut legit entries, so even if the other two are marginal, that's enough for a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now, this is like you're trying to represent the search engine output in disambiguation page form. From the list of ships at Neštin-class river minesweeper, none of them even have red links (apparently the writer of the list didn't even believe in their red link potential?), and I could find none of them listed/linked from Neštin (not even the whole class!), Titel (disambiguation), Belegiš, Apatin, Smederevo (has other hatnotes), Novi Sad (disambiguation), Újpest (has a hatnote), Baja, Százhalombatta, Óbuda, Dunaújváros, Dunaföldvár. This again sounds like a solution in search of a problem. WP:NOTBURO comes to mind. --Joy (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:DABMENTION: "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader." I've been adding article-less ships in numerous other dab pages for quite a while without complaint ... until now. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're citing a manual of style and an explanatory essay after I mentioned the policy that says: Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. The principle here should be - let's have a system that makes sure the readers can navigate to various ambiguous uses of the term. These are certainly things named after the river or the village, but they're not actually known to be ambiguous with their eponyms. Maintaining this list in a disambiguation format is unlikely to lead to any appreciable amount of readership, because there's just not much there to read about, these are mere cursory mentions. The value is not there. --Joy (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a valid disambiguation page. It has sufficient entries, all of which are reasonable disambiguation entries per WP:DAB. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the village, culture, forest, minesweeper, football club are all valid dab page entries. PamD 08:58, 9 December 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.