Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BMW 335 (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 delete. Tone 16:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

BMW 335 (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This disambiguation page only has 2 entries and is therefore not required per WP:2DABS. (The page also has a number of style errors per MOS:DAB). The primary topic (the first entry, a redirect to BMW 335) already has a hatnote to the other use (the second entry, a redirect to BMW 3 Series (E90)). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep.  You would have done us all a favo(u)r of you had entered this bit before you put a deletion flag on the article in question rather than waiting till I had reverted it.   But thank you for belatedly sharing your logic.   I think the key is your assertion that the page is "not required".   You can make the case that the whole of wikipedia is "not required".   However, I think the page is potentially helpful.   That is a more important test than whether or not something is "required".   Wikipedia's most important customers are not the nerdy types - you and me - who contribute to it in our spare moments.   We are compiling this thing  for the interested generalist who finds he or she knows less than he or she wishes to know about a given topic.   For that most important customer, I think this disambiguation page may be more helpful - user-friendly and welcoming - than another tiresome little distracting note at the top of the "wrong" wiki-entry.   If you don't like the style, feel free to improve on it.   That would be a more constructive use of your skill and judgment, I dare, respectfully, to suggest.   But you are, of course, very welcome to think differently.  Maybe you do.   Success Charles01 (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. A run-of-the-mill TWODABS candidate. Also, Charles01, a snarky attitude doesn't help your argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you don't like my attitude.  I wonder if you could bring yourself to address the issues?  And please, sir!  (I still think our friend would have done us all a favo(u)r of he or she had entered his explanation before dumping a deletion application rather than waiting till I had reverted it.   I'm sorry if you find that odd.   It's an issue of basic courtesy, but it's also an issue of practicality.)   Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I've now looked over the recent edit history. You reverted Shhhnotsoloud's prod for no legitimate reason that I can see; the same rationales were given there as are reiterated here. Claiming that WP:2DABS is "private jargon", especially when it was linked and you are an editor of long standing, seems rather disingenuous to me. And I did address the issues, referring to the same guideline as the nominator. You, on the other hand, have not. Your main arguments seem to be it's WP:HARMLESS and "potentially" WP:USEFUL. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Mindlessly and selectively citing wiki-guidelines is not a substitute for thinking for yourself.  There are plenty of lawyers who get paid to do that which is fine.   But these are guide-lines intended to help you make wikipedia better - more "fit for purpose" - if you are keen to keep up with contemporary jargon.  One can certainly go too far with Jimmy Wales' provocative mantra (I think it was originally he, but the point needs to be made even if it was not) that one should ignore all rules.   And yet ... taken together the wikipedia guidelines are stuffed with mutual contradictions and ambiguities that could keep a top lawyer happy for a lifetime (except no one would pay him or her to do it - maybe a top theologian).   By all means invoke wiki-guidelines.   They're mostly excellent statements of good sense according to the perspective of the helpful person or persons who compiled them.   But these are a means, and not things you should ever wish to treat as ends for their own sake.   Wikipedia is not a dictator-state with a simple book of rules, and if you try and turn it into that you will - to the extent you succeed - stiffle the thing and, ultimately hasten its demise.   Well, nothing lasts for ever ...   But please step back, take a deep breath, engage brain and THINK for yourself.   Thank you.   And sorry (up to a point) to bang on.   (I appreciate I may be wrong in this particular example:  but simply invoking wiki-guidelines without further discussion doesn't begin to explain why - which you seem to - you think I am wrong.) Best wishes  Charles01 (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * And now you insult me too. I had to check WP:MOSTEDITS to confirm your background, because your behaviour suggests otherwise. Seriously? This isn't a vital, top-importance article. This is a simple dab page and a simple situation which has consistently been handled the same way all the time, e.g. Santorum (disambiguation), which is also undergoing Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Per Charles01. --Doncram (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like a useful TWODABs page since the BMW 3 Series (E90) page mentions BMW models named 335is, 335xi, 335d, which would lead to confusion about how many 335 models there might be. Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Orphan disambiguation page whose navigational function is handled by the hatnote on BMW 335. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per standard procedure with TWODABS. Not needed. --Randykitty (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Disambiguation helps orient users. Here we have two (2) items with a similar name. The purpose of orientation can be served, as per typical practice, by placing at the top of each of the two articles a WP:SIMILAR template. -The Gnome (talk)`


 * 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.