Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bug river (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   redirect to Bug river. &mdash; Scientizzle 14:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Bug river (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Disambiguation page is not needed for only two items. Hat note is at the top of both pages already Ajh1492 (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is intertwined with a discussion on Western Bug vs Bug River page movement at the talk page - see there for details. If a user searches on Bug they will get redirected to the Bug (disambiguation) page which has a Geography section pointing them to either river-related article. In addition there are hatnotes on both river pages in keeping with WP policy on hatnotes vs. disambiguation pages.


 * My point is that there doesn't need to be a separate disambiguation page just for two entries. I'm just asking that this page is deleted. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In reality the names of the rivers in question are Bug River and Southern Buh River, so the disambiguation itself is questionable. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep To quote myself in Articles for deletion/Bug river below ....sounds like very much like WP:USELESS or at least WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which are not only invalid arguments in an AFD, but invalid reasons to nominate an article for deletion to begin with.  Dennis Brown (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and redirect to Bug river (if that is kept as a disambiguation page) or keep it redirected to Bug (if Bug river ends up not being a disambiguation page).-- Beloved Freak  20:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article is a disambiguation page to a disambiguation page that does not provide content or background about its subject. Eduemoni↑talk↓  23:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment perhaps you're not familiar with WP:INTDABLINK. It is not a dab page, it is a redirect.65.93.12.8 (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy close this is a redirect, not an article, redirects are deleted at WP:RFD. 65.93.12.8 (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a disambig page (per the title), not a redirect. Subtle but important difference. If it redirects, then that is an error. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. If a page without a specific disambiguation parenthetical serves are a disambiguation page, typically because there is no primary topic, a redirect from the form of the title with an explicit (disambiguation) is often created to help people typing in names in the search box or making links.  Eluchil404 (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy close per 65.93.12.8 this page is not, and never had been, an article subject to deletion via AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2011 (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.