Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuisine of Devon and Cornwall


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Cuisine of Devon and Cornwall

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Disambiguation page for two distinct and unambiguous terms. Prodded some years ago, declined on the basis of possible incoming external links, which I do not think is a particularly useful rationale for permanently maintaining a useless page that draws a misleading inference that the terms on it are ambiguous to one another. bd2412 T 19:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a useful disambiguation page. Pburka (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This disambiguation page is not needed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed.  I can't see any reason that the two articles need any disambiguation at all.  If there is a pressing reason to disambiguate, it would be better to do so in the respective articles rather than a disambiguation page with only two entries.  --Tathar (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, really unnecessary disambiguation. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - no need for this dab page, and an unlikely search term. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Contrary to the assertions of uselessness above, the stats show that since September (I've not looked earlier) this has been getting between 80 and 170 hits a month. Either it is a more likely search term than those above me think, or it's getting hits from an external inbound link. Devon and Cornwall might not be ambiguous to one another, but they are adjacent counties in the south west of England that are often grouped together by visitors to the region and share a police force (Devon and Cornwall Police), so it's quite likely that people will think of them together. Additional to that, the content was until July 2010 at a single page at this title, until it was moved to Cuisine of Cornwall and Devon split off into a separate article. Redirecting to either Cuisine of Cornwall or Cuisine of Devon would be wrong, and targeting Cuisine of England would make it harder for people to find the content they are looking for - what other option but a disambiguation page is there? Were this a redirect caused my a page move, then we would keep it to preserve the edit history per the GFDL requirements, so why should we do differently just because it isn't a redirect? Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What about a See also section in each of the Cornwall and Devon articles pointing to each other to solve the problem of people looking for content of both? Zangar (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That will work once they've found one of the articles, but doesn't help them find then in the first place. Where do we send them when they're linked to this title and are just told there is nothing here? Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, within Wikipedia these links can be changed - at the time of me writing this reply there are no mainspace links to this article. Also if someone wanted to search for this specific title they would either see "Cuisine of Devon" as a search suggestion, or after hitting enter would find both articles in the first 5 results. As for the outside wiki-world - Wikipedia has articles deleted all the time and cannot be assumed to remain constant. Zangar (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * People use many different ways to find content on Wikipedia, internal links and the internal search engine are just two of many. As responsible internet citizens we should be doing our best to avoid link rot (for our own benefit as much as every else's) - see this statement by former Chief Technical Officer Brion Vibber. It's one thing to delete a link to content that has been deleted - we don't have an article on Fruit (non-notable band), so removing it from the "Fruit (disambiguation)" page does nobody any harm. This isn't the case here though, we have not deleted the content, we've just spit it into two articles rather than one, but we still want people to be able to find it. If it violates the style guidelines to help people find the content then either the style guidelines are wrong or we're applying the wrong ones. Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If I make a disambiguation page titled "Lemons and bananas", stating therein that the phrase may refer to lemons, or to bananas, and we suspect that this is linked externally (although we have no way of knowing that this is actually happening), are we then bound to keep the page forever, even though it is flatly inaccurate to suggest that the phrase can be used to refer to either of the terms individually? This page is currently presented as a disambiguation page; it does not actually disambiguate anything; therefore it is presenting incorrect information. Are we bound by policy to permanently maintain incorrect information because someone out there might be linking to it? bd2412  T 01:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what has happened here. This was a single artle which then got split into two separate articles, neither of them at this title. It might not be a "disambiguation" page in the typical sense, but it is not innacurrate to say that "You are looking for XY, we don't have an article about both of them together any more but we do have article X and article Y.". If the same had happened with "Lemons and bananas" then I'd be recommending keeping that if the stats show that it was in use (which the stats for "Cuisine of Devon and Cornwall" clearly do show), but as it didn't it's completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How the page came to exist is irrelevant to the question of whether it should now exist. The phrase "Cuisine of Devon and Cornwall" is not ambiguous, and apparently there is not a notable cuisine encompassing the two places, such that they are incapable of being described independently. The page, therefore, serves no purpose within the context of the article space of an encyclopedia, just like any other non-notable combination. At best, if there is a list of Cuisines of England, maybe it can be redirected there. bd2412  T 04:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete two unambiguous and distinct items. No need for a disambiguation page or a list. DuncanHill (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The page has now served its purpose following the article splits to unambiguous ones. Zangar (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this article should never have been created in the first place. No one would ever combine the cusine of Devon and Cornwall together and thus this page is pointless.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  21:47, 29 April 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.