Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciocănari


 * 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. and relisting again isn't likely to bring us closer to one. There is and will always be debate over whether all populated places are inherently notable. Until such time as that's settled (and we're all long dead), there's no deleting this one. TravellingCari 03:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ciocănari

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a superfluous disambiguation as there are no villages of that name on Wikipedia. The disambiguation can be recreated if the articles are created, but after two years this seems unlikely in the near future. Tavix (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This was originally prodded, and User:Ceyockey supported deletion with the following remarks before the prod was removed without a reason:
 * Both red-linked titles are orphans (i.e. what links here is empty for each). If they were not orphans, I could support keeping the dab page.


 * Delete as an invalid disambiguation page. They're intended to link to two or more articles of the same or similar name. This one doesn't. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If I'm not mistaken, it disambigs into a wall...or two. &mdash; La Pianista ( T • C • S ) 20:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.   —Tavix (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Both items are named inhabited places, which are generally held to be notable. The disambiguation is helpful to the reader, letting them know that two such places exist. If you aren't happy that the village articles don't exist yet, WP:SOFIXIT suggests writing said articles.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  18:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WRITE THEM THEN! Don't go yelling at me to write an article that I don't feel is notable. Tavix (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Fabrictramp. The places exist and there are links to their communes, which provide some info for the reader. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Niculeşti, since Măciuca doesn't mention it. (Or add a mention in Măciuca and leave as a base-name dab.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - let me explain what's going on here. No, the individual villages probably are not notable (all information on them can probably fit into the parent article on the commune). However, we have literally hundreds of these: Soci, Tarniţa, Varniţa, Branişte, Plopi, Ursoaia, Rădeni, Stâna, Rogoz, Rusca, etc, etc. They disambiguate among villages of the same name, are useful in identifying a village where the county is not known, etc. I appreciate Stifle's argument, but this is a clear WP:IAR case - it's the easiest way to tell apart the villages, and thus serves to improve the encyclopedia, even if the letter of the disambiguation policy is being violated by those villages not having articles. Biruitorul Talk 22:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then add a mention of in Măciuca and leave as a base-name dab, otherwise "disambiguating" it does not serve to improve the encyclopedia, since there are no articles to disambiguate. Geographic set index articles (not disambiguation pages) may be what you are looking for -- they list geographic entities by set (such as by similar name); they do not follow the dab guidelines, but instead follow the list guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How about disambiguating redirects, like I just did? And what about the 600+ other such pages, which have sat undisturbed for two years while performing a rather useful function? Are they also to be marked for deletion? Biruitorul Talk 17:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You've got a page redirecting to itself. Otherwise, yes, creating the redirects is another good way to address the problem.  I'm not sure where you're going with the 600+ other pages, unless it's Other stuff exists -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, basically, exactly this stuff exists, 600 other times. If we delete this one, we should delete all of them, but the proper forum to begin that discussion is elsewhere. (Not that this AfD has been entirely without merit; at least the relevant issues have been raised.) Biruitorul Talk 21:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I deleted the redirect to itself. If this is not the proper forum, please raise the issue at the proper forum. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BURO. Moreover (as I recall), Ciocănari, Vâlcea redirected to Măciuca, not to itself. Is there anything wrong with that? Biruitorul Talk 16:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. No question, geographical, encyclopedic, I need the page. A is putting the smack down (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I see grounds for keeping, and I see grounds for deleting. On principle (and I have argued for this view for a while now), no articles about the villages themselves should exist: not only are they tiny, but the info folds back into the articles on communes (and communes are by definition notable). What does that say about disambig for villages? It depends. Does the reader need the page with redirects for the communes - probably (but, if this is the case, we could consider only linking the commune names in each page - per WP:OVERLINK). Can the page exist with references only to the communes? Maybe, maybe not. As I see it, this disambig matter is uncharted territory, and I for one could lean either way if we set a principle here and now, that we then apply to other such pages. Dahn (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken - but the idea is we shouldn't use a piecemeal approach, deleting just Ciocănari; we should decide whether to keep all or delete all. Biruitorul Talk 22:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I suppose it's Keep, at least until such a time. Dahn (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This dab page is useful in showing where individual villages are located. They may and may never have articles, but they still seve a purpose. the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 21:55, 29 September 2008 (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.