Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beautiful frog


 * 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Beautiful frog

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nobody would ever search under "Beautiful frog" for any of the frogs listed on this disambiguation page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep If there are two frogs known as "beautiful frog", why shouldn't this be a reasonable DAB page?-- cyclopia speak! 15:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep this and the other frog DAB pages. No reason was given why "nobody would ever search" for this term.  Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems like a WP:PTM violation. http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Beautiful%20frog doesn't really indicate this is a serious search term. Some reliable source examination would be good. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete While many frogs have been called beautiful, notably Odorrana ishikawae, I found no frog species (or genus) known as the "beautiful frog". There was none found in a search of GoogleScholar, and none found in a general Google search. This page is unlike the dab page for "ornate frog", because there species are in fact called "ornate frog" as well as more detailed appellations. Anomalocaris's point is well taken, this is not a likely search term, and none of the outcomes are so known.  As a result of none of these being known as the "beautiful frog", this falls under WP:Disambiguation, as noted by editor Joy &#91;shallot&#93; above. A List of beautiful frogs would be a very different matter, and a much longer, albeit highly subjective, list. --Bejnar (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Bejnar. This is just a disambiguation page of redirects with no indication in Google or GoogleScholar of named beautiful frogs. I am One of Many (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There are at least three articles with frog names that contained sourced "beautiful". One that was originally on the disambiguation page was not a sourced common name.  I edit the DAB page so that it has those three articles as User:DGG indicated below. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It is just a Dab page and it has related pages. Frmorrison (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - plausible search term; I'm not 100% convinced that this is what readers are likely to mean, but I think it's the best we can do. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help readers find what they're looking for, pre-supposing that they already know everything is presupposing something that's almost certainly false.  Wily D  13:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've argued against the notion it's a plausible search term, but for the sake of argument, if you're not sure a disambiguation page is actually helpful here, why not leave it to the search engine, then? This line of reasoning is a slippery slope to beautiful horse, beautiful flower, beautiful car, beautiful TV, beautiful woman, beautiful concept, ... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Also see the arguments at Articles for deletion/Lesser frog.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep It is actually part of the common name of several frogs, which should be listed here. It's not a vlaue judment, and the people who think it are--including the nom--must not be reading the article.  DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to be annoying here, but you've literally contradicted the WP:PTM guideline - if it's part of the common name, it's not the common name itself, hence disambiguation is not the right tool for the job. A disambiguation page is not a search index. [...] Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title. The term "beautiful frog" does not appear on any of the three linked articles themselves, so it's hard to see why anyone would refer to them using this specific term as opposed to their actual listed names. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep As per DGG and WilyD.It is a common name and a search term for frogs.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep WilyD is on point here. Even if it isn't a commonly used search term, disambiguation pages (like redirects) guide people to the proper article. Even if it only helps lead one person to the correct page, it's doing its job. Upjav (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2014 (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.