Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derzhava (2nd nomination)


 * 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. JForget 02:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Derzhava
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Disambiguation page listing nothing but red links. I would have used the proposed deletion system here, except that another page under this title was deleted at AFD back in 2009. Regardless, the lack of incoming links suggests this one isn't particularly necessary. If anyone writes these articles, the disambiguation page can always be recreated, but at the moment it's entirely unhelpful. Robofish (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Darkwind (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Now this, this is cruft. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cleaned up to link to the appropriate articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are still zero blue links. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I count five blue links, one in each description. See also MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * keep as per jhunterj. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 15:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A plausible search term which now (thanks to JHunter) provides useful information. --MelanieN (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - none of the entries have an article with the disambiguation term in its title, which defeats the purpose of WP:DISAMBIG, WP:DDD. The red links are essentially orphans, the Russian party and yacht ones only have 2 links there aside from the disambig page, the Ukrainian party red link is nowhere else.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please also see MOS:DABRL, which shows that these entries do not defeat the purpose of WP:DISAMBIG. I did fix my typo in the Ukrainian party red link; "What links here" now shows its two other links as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've seen WP:DABRL, and still don't see how it justifies a disambiguation page with only red links for the disambiguation term. There are zero articles with Derzhava in the title. We have no proof for the notability of the red links, and this disambiguation page itself is an orphan page as no actual articles point to it (only user pages, discussions and project pages). This is to me pretty strong evidence that here is nothing to disambiguate, thus the page should be deleted.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As a member of the disambiguation project, I can explain some of the confusion. MOS:DABRL justifies red link entries in disambiguation pages. If there is more than one entry, then the dab page is justified (if there's only one, the dab page can redirect to the blue link in it instead). Base name disambiguation pages do not have to be un-orphaned, any more than redirects do. They are there for navigational purposes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Instead of quibbling about rules (see WP:IAR), let's think about usefulness to somebody who is trying to look something up in this encyclopedia. The subject page clearly serves that purpose. Page view statistics show that the page is viewed every day by multiple people. --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - there's a peak since the AfD (AfD's call attention to articles), prior to that it's hard to say who visited the page for what. We're talking about very few hits in general (no more than 12 hits a day, usually much fewer, can't tell if it's one person looking at it multiple times).--70.80.234.196 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep This is a valid dab page.Starzynka (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Was OK with just the red links; is, of course, OK now that the links have been turned blue.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 26, 2010; 13:50 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. Look at it pragmatically: If one has encountered this Russian (or Ukrainian) word, transcribed in English as Derzhava, as the name of something - a party, a ship, or as a reference to the globus cruciger of the Russian imperial regalia - and wants to look it up, an article like this is useful, as it will either guide him to the appropriate article, or will tell him that yes, the word may mean something else (for what we don't have an article [yet]). Although I have to say that trying to craft a disambig page that would take care of most likely occurrences of Derzhava in English texts is probably a futile undertaking. This is because in Russian this word is primarily used in its main meaning ("a [powerful, sovereign] nation state"), and then in names of a lot of not-very-notable entities (political parties, organizations, brand names, companies, ships), none of which is very prominent. Thus, realistically, most occurrences of Derzhava in texts in English would be in reference to a large variety of "minor" Russian entities - from a vodka brand to a hotel chain to a patriotic club - that are either not very notable or not notable at all. Reminds you a bit of (the real) Acme Corporations. Vmenkov (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, valid & useful dab page.  Anna Lincoln  11:18, 27 April 2010 (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.