Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arncliffe


 * 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The result was   keep, as nomination withdrawn.  Bduke    (Discussion)  03:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Arncliffe

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This disambiguation page is not needed as it only points to two places. It should be made into a redirect to the English Arncliffe as that is the oldest and the Australian place of the same name is named after the English Village. Disambiguation can be done with hatnotes. Bduke   (Discussion)  23:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did consider deleting this as a speedy and then recreating it as a redirect to the North Yorkshire Arncliffe. However, it did not seem to quite fit the criteria. I would be happy if others think it does fit the speedy criteria. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no clearcut main topic. (Plus I've added a couple of entries.) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Though two of the pieces could possibly merge the other two are distinct and notable enough to have independent articles. I would rather error on the side of an individual looking for information going to a Disambiguation page and seeing the possable results of their search rather that just being redirected to an article that has no relevance to their search criteria.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 00:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Being the oldest doesn't give Arncliffe, North Yorkshire priority. In fact, its population is just 85, compared to Arncliffe, New South Wales's 8500. Also, the traffic stats for February suggest the NSW page gets twice as many hits. Notability seems roughly the same, and so neither should take precedence. Hence, the disambiguation page is totally appropriate. StAnselm (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I will withdraw this. The addition of two new items is the key. Interestingly this page is not linked to in article space. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  03:44, 8 March 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.