Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbre


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbre

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is supposedly a disambiguation page, but not even one of the articles it points to is entitled arbre. The rest of the content is a dictionary definition, and of a non-English word at that. I don't see any reason for the page to exist; without it, typing arbre into "Go" gets you search results, which is probably more useful. Trovatore (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just tweaked it a bit to get it into the proper WP:DAB format, what do you think now? Amalthea  11:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't read WP:DAB in quite some time, it seems, didn't realize that partial title matches were actively discouraged. Nonetheless though, and even if the three ambiguous topics are only redlinks, it looks useful to me. Page search is particularly helpful for page title matches, not so much with a rather generic word in article bodies. The three redlink topics are only referred to in hits 20, 22, and 82 when . The question is whether a DAB page should provide navigation between standalone articles, or between topics. I've no real opinion on the partial matches, and the See-also link to Baum should almost certainly be removed. But even if it's only the three redlinks and the wiktionary connection (and personally I would bring back the '[...] is the French word for "tree" and [...]' bit) I think it's a useful DAB page, for someone who actually looks up that word in search for one of those meanings, more so than a page search. Amalthea  09:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Amalthea's cleanup. Article appears to be a proper disambiguation page, now. Some of the topics are thin, but we have enough to justify a DAB page. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep certainly the first 3 entries meet MOS:DABRL, although the later ones appear to be partial matches. Boleyn2 (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The redlink entries, and the partial-match entries, would be reasonable inclusions if there were a reason to have a disambig page in the first place. But can a disambig page be justified when there are only redlinks and partial matches???  I don't think so; I've never seen one like that, and I don't think it's a good precedent. --Trovatore (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Very nice job on Amalthea's part there, it looks like a real disambiguation page now and works fine. Silver  seren C 18:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I see only keep !votes, but not a single one of them has offered a rationale why it's better to have this page than not have it.  I thought the purpose of disambig pages was to help people navigate among pages that would otherwise share the same name.  When there is not even a single existing page that would plausibly named arbre, it seems very strange to me to have a disambig for the term. --Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are multiple articles, as the page shows, that have to do with the word "Arbre" and it is good for Wikipedia to have a disambiguation page for readers to find the one they are looking for. Silver  seren C 20:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it good? Isn't that what the search engine is for?  The existence of a page called arbre short-circuits the search engine from redlinks and from "Go".  --Trovatore (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, that's what disambiguation pages are for. Read WP:DISAMBIG. We use them in order to direct readers to various articles that may fall under an ambiguous term. Silver  seren C 20:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But the term is not ambiguous, not in the sense of having multiple articles that would naturally be called arbre! What you have is, some articles that mention the word arbre, and two things that plausibly could be articles called arbre, but aren't.  The wording I remember for the purpose of disambiguation pages is something like to help readers navigate among articles that have the same name.  This wording appears to have been changed &mdash; how much was this discussed?  I think the old wording is better. --Trovatore (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason it was changed was because there are some articles that have a slightly different or longer name that is not exact, but still relates to the overall topic. So just having disambiguation pages have those that have the "same name" cuts out a significant amount of articles that readers may be looking for. This is why it was changed. Silver  seren C 21:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to that discussion? I don't see it on the talk page of WP:DISAMBIG. --Trovatore (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - have added redlinks for the 2 Belgian places. One of them was already linked (just as Arbre) from List_of_twin_towns_and_sister_cities_in_France, so I've fixed that link. PamD (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - dab pages fulfill a more refined role than a string-match search. If I type "Arbre", it is very handy for me to see a list of pages that are called—or could be called—Arbre, not just an undifferentiated set of pages that happen to have the string arbre in them.  A redlink/bluelink entry might even point me to a page that does not currently have the target string at all, leading me to a closely-related page to the topic I'm interested in, even if that topic is not at this point specifically covered by its own WP article.  (And perhaps encouraging me to add material about that topic.)
 * Note that if none of the redlinked entries had an appropriate bluelink, this role would not be fulfilled, and the entries should be removed per WP:MOSDAB, at which point the page itself might collapse into nothingness. This does not seem to be the case here.--NapoliRoma (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2010 (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.