Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bostonnais


 * 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 no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyofShalott (talk • contribs)

Bostonnais

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It's unfortunate that the editor didn't read WP:DISAMBIG before creating this disambiguation page, because it totally fails the disambiguation purpose. In the long list, there are only 2 entries with an article, and moreover, they have unique names not requiring disambiguation. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 01:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to La Bostonnais, Quebec, with a hatnote from there to Bostonnais River. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The disambiguation article "Bostonnais" (this French word means "Bostonians" in English) was created by myself with the purpose to help Wikipedia users to navigate more easily in this encyclopedia. At least 23 toponyms integrating "Bostonnais" are known in the province of Québec (most of them in Upper-Mauricie area). Actually, "Bostonnais" toponyms are confusing for reasearchers and readers. Four WP articles were created in English about toponyms with "Bostonnais", and more new articles are expected to be publish on WP.

The idea of adding a simple footnote (in order to resume both Bostonnais rivers and "Grand lake Bostonnais" article) in the article "La Bostonians" (municipality) is not satisfactory and discriminatory. Each Bostonnais toponyms deserves its own article and its own reference in the article "Bostonnais" (disambiguation).

Is Wikipedia a universal encyclopedia? If so, this debate for deleting the article "Bostonnais" (disambiguation) is unappropriate. Articles in reference in the article "Bostonnais" are a work in progress. WP readers merit access to this article "Bostonnais" (disambiguation) in English on Wikipedia. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veillg1 (talk • contribs)


 * Firstly, the talk page of the AFD discussion is not the place to post comments; you should do so either on the talk page of the article or in the AFD discussion (I've moved it to the proper place for you). And please read WP:DAB; Wikipedia does not create disambiguation pages to comprehensively list every single article that happens to have a particular word in its title, but only where two or more articles are potentially in competition for the same title. That is, a disambiguation page should only be created in this instance if one or more of the topics in the list could actually be titled "Bostonnais" — which exactly none of them could, per our naming conventions for geographic topics. Rather, they are all titles which merely contain the word Bostonnais within a longer proper name — which, again, is not the purpose of a dab page. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that I've also added Wayagamac, another page created by the same user for the same incorrect purpose, to this nomination. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment See Disambiguation. I'm not convinced that any of these are valid entries. Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Wayagamac - delete/redirect to Lake Lake is a partial match, but is the nearest to a valid entry. Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional comment - Thank you for your feedback. I understand that it is normal to have rules on WP and enforcement. It is also important to be open minded in the interpretation of these rules. The article WP:DAB indicates that "there are no absolute rules for determining a primary topic". This WP article refers also to "common sense" and the importance "to spare people of extra navigation steps".

Browsing on WP, I note that several elements in the WP disambiguation articles are not respecting the criteria to use only "identical title" which are covered on WP articles. It seems that many users consider disambiguation articles as a search index. And it is usually not a problem but advantages for users. If few users consider that some disambiguation articles featuring a search index is useless for them, they will probably not consult them in the future. This means there is no negative consequences for them. On the other hand, many users perceive great benefits to these search index and use them fluently. This saves them time to find the appropriate information. To date, nobody has sold me the idea that these articles featuring a pertinent search index on WP are useless. If some WP users interpret the desambiguation rules in a restrictive way, it is necessary to question the WP rule and probably to propose a change. Should we consider adding a new category of articles, such a search index article which also include topic not yet covered by WP articles? In summary, I consider "Bostonnais" and "Wayagamac" as a primary topic, eligible for WP desambiguation article in accordance with WP rules. Those single terms are ambiguous in navigation on WP. The efficiency must prevail. In the search for a compromise, I propose the idea of ​​removing the word "disambiguation" from the article. That means the article will be a regular one. Keep it.(talk) 15:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The argument listed above, about "there are no absolute rules for determining a primary topic" is a strawman. The contention is not whether the primary topic is appropriate, but that the all the listed articles have completely different names, failing WP:PTM. As for the argument for not following the rules, I can only point to WP:FOLLOW. Gm545 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as a dab page (as currently structured). These geographic locations are, and logically should be, independent articles; however, none of them is more significant or particularly more likely to generate page views than any of the others. The best solution is a dab page. Risker (talk) 03:25, 13 January 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.