Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mătăcina

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mătăcina[edit]

Neither of the places have articles, thus there's no need for the disambig page. Dooms Day349 19:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petition rejected. no reason to delete. Create the articles! - Francis Tyers · 19:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That's not a reason to delete it. bogdan 19:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If the places themselves don't have articles, why do we need a disambig page for it? The point of a disambig page is to allow navigation between articles with the same or similar titles; what reason is there to navigate through red links? Dooms Day349 19:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the target articles get created, then there might be a need for a dismabig page. Note that for only two items, the usual disambig action is to provide disambig text in the article itself referencing the other article, and not to create a separate page. so until three of these town need to be distinguished, I fail too see a need for this page. -- Whpq 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's only if one search term is substantially more likely than the other. When the search terms are equally likely, there is no reason to favor one of them. Which one would be named Mătăcina? Punkmorten 21:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an interesting case. Pages like these are extremely useful, because they help channel incoming links to their appropriate target: Imagine if someone wikilinks the term Mătăcina in an article, intending to point to Mătăcina in Alba County. Without this disambiguation page there would be no way to tell how to redlink the place appropriatly. Punkmorten 21:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page can be useful. TSO1D 22:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, it's an interesting case, but since all cities, towns and villages are (currently) considered implicitly notable, I think think this is an instance where a pre-emptive disambiguation is acceptable, albeit a bit excessive. Xtifr _tälk 23:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep pending stub. no need for disambig page of 2 terms, this shld be stubbed as one of them, with similar importance its just the one that gets the title first, the other gets some dishniguishing thingy. even as is, it helps avoid links being created to alternative/wrong transliterations (this is probably the reason for it, please put more thought into you afd noms, for instance cld have proded it or just asked it's creator 1st if you didn't understand why it was there). ⇒ bsnowball 11:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no. There is no first-come-first-serve principle, the name Mătăcina (without disambiguation) doesn't belong to one village more than to the other. Punkmorten 11:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under what criteria/policy/guideline are we supposed to delete this disambiguation page? I don't see one. This is a good example of anticipating the eventual need of one. Keep. B.Wind 01:56, 7 December 2006 (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.