Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frunzensky District


 * 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 (non-admin closure), as per the consensus of this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Frunzensky District

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

Disambiguation page for which all targets are nonexistent. Tlesher (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC) *Delete. No blue links and its been here for what, 2 years? Create the articles first, then the article index.  Syn  ergy 23:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This is not a disambiguation page.  It is a set index article in the scope of WP:RUSSIA and subject to that project's governances.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Governances"?! Just to remind you, WikiProjects do not have ownership of articles. the wub "?!"  18:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  18:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm, I do not claim ownership of this page, neither personally, nor via the WikiProject. I am merely pointing out that, a) since it is not a disambiguation page, disambiguation page guidelines do not apply, and b) since this is a set index article in the scope of WP:RUSSIA, the guidelines and practices set forth and followed by that project do apply.  Since the nomination is based on the statement that the page should be deleted as MOSDAB-incompliant, my comment is simply a clarification of that misunderstanding.  "Governance", perhaps, was too strong of the word, so if it helps, feel free to replace it with "guidelines".  In the absence of a general guideline or when such a general guideline is, well, too general, WikiProject's guidelines take over.  That's what WikiProjects are for.  Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, no biggie. It was just your choice of words that worried me. the wub "?!"  20:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "No blue links" is not a valid reason to delete this page as it is not a disambiguation page and is thus outside of scope of WP:MOSDAB.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is in fact inside the scope, or else it wouldn't be covered in the guideline.  Syn  ergy 11:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. These are notable districts. There is already an article of one of them on the Russian wikipedia. We can translate it to the english wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Having lists of places with similar names, locations or whatever is a good thing; it's a starting point for new articles, and if you're looking for places named after someone/something this is a viable list to use. If current policy is against keeping such lists with redlinks, I suggest that we either move the list or change the policy! Another good example is List of peaks named Signal Mountain, which lists basic info about the places, which could be useful for some people. Bjelleklang -  talk  Bug Me  10:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, as per policy the guideline: A set index article describes a single set of concepts. For example, Dodge Charger describes a set of cars, List of peaks named Signal Mountain describes a set of mountain peaks, or USS Enterprise describes a set of ships. A set index article is both for information and for navigation: just like a normal list article, it can have metadata and extra information about each entry. A set index article can be entertaining and informative by itself, can help editors find redlinks to create articles on notable entries, and finally can also help readers navigate between articles that have similar names. A set index article should not be restricted by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) as it currently stands, but instead should follow the relevant style described in Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). link. I'd say this is a speedy close as keep, but as I've participated I'll leave the decision up to someone else. Bjelleklang -  talk  Bug Me  10:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. But I digress. I don't like keeping things like this in article namespace purely because its information. Its currently not being used to navigate one single article and its been this way since 2006. Its a problem when we retain a list of redlinks for the sake of information. And Bjelleklang: I read all of that, and its still not a policy. You representing it as one is a bit odd.  Syn  ergy 11:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My bad, didn't spot the guideline bit :/ Bjelleklang -  talk  Bug Me  11:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To address Synergy's concern regarding that this page is kept because it is "purely information"&mdash;when trying to find information about something called "Frunzensky District", where would you rather prefer to end up&mdash;on a page listing all of the districts with this name, even if it is all red links, or in the middle of nowhere with the "page not found" sign? The former gives you a starting point for further research (even if it's outside of Wikipedia), the latter does not.  The page was not created for the sake of just being there, it was created as a starter with possible uses even in its current, red-linked form.  It also catches undisambiguated links to and allows to disambiguate them, thus reducing maintenance overhead in the long run.  The backlinks produced by this list are useful as a reference when writing future article dealing with the subject.  All in all, the page is hardly useless.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have provided references for each entry in the list, so it is harder to confuse this page with a disambiguation page now.  Hopefully this alleviates some concerns.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:11, 23 July 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.