Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GCPC


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

GCPC

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

OK, this is a strange one. Tidying-up some dead-end articles I came across GCPC, which contained no blue-links and only redlinks. I got rid of these according to WP:DABRL and this discussion yesterday so that the page could then be speedied, which it was.

It was then recreated by User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_) (who had created the original page) with some of the same links as it had before. However, in order that these were no longer redlinks he created pages for them, which were all only redirects (Grain Crude Protein Concentration, which redirects to Grain, which redirects to cereal, and Government Commercial Purchase Card, which redirects to Government procurement in the United States, and Granule-cell-Purkinje-cell, which redirects to Purkinje cell. As well as this, User:Freakshownerd came along and added a who load of things that we don't have articles on, but which could pop up on Google if you typed in GCPC.

So, we now have a dab page which has three bluelinks to specially created redirects, one redlink, and four things that are not linked at all.

I don't understand why this has happened. Whilst Grain Crude Protein Concentration is a real term, firstly we don't have an article on it, and secondly it's abbreviated to CP anyway. Granule-cell-Purkinje-cell is a neologism as far as I can tell - wehen it does pop up in the scientific literature, the hyphen in the middle is used to signify the interaction between grain cells and purkinje cells - it's separating two entities, not conjoining them into one.

As far as I can tell, all we have here is just a list of things that might be abbreviated GCPC, not articles with the same title (which is what DAB pages are for). Any thoughts? Is there some secret wikiproject to keep dabs from abbreviations that I don't know about?Chris (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I did the speedy as at that time the article had sat for nearly two years without a single bluelink. While I think it is pretty lame resurrect the page in this particular manner, it is now a semi-valid dab page. I think some of those newly created redirects are worth discussing over at WP:RFD as they were obviously created solely to justify the recreation of this page and are of little to no value in navigating the encyclopedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  —Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No opinion yet on whether to keep or delete this yet, but if the linked articles do not support usage of GCPC, then they should not be included on this page. older ≠ wiser 21:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP No different from other acronym disambig pages to multiple unrelated things. There's no principled basis for deletion other than deletionism. Lycurgus (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Can someone point out where in editing policy it says that redlinks aren't allowed in disambiguation pages? It should also be noted that there are actually more acronyms that have been removed from the page for unknown reasons. It's unclear to me how removing the disambiguating content improves the encyclopedia. I do think the links should be well targeted to appropriate content where the subject is actually discussed. But just because there is no article on the government procurement card doesn't mean there shouldn't be a link to the government procurement article where that subject is discussed. Otherwise we should never merge anything beacuse we wouldn't be able to find things. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep It doesn't seem to be doing any damage, and, assuming that GCPC is indeed used as an acronym for multiple subjects, it'd be helpful. Of course, I know nothing about Grain Crude Protein Concentration or Granule-cell-Purkinje-cell(s?) anyway. The Rhymesmith (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Some replies. Firstly, there is a protocol for redlinks on DAB pages; it's at WP:DABRL. Essentially it says you can remove redlinks which are do not appear elsewhere on the project, which was the case here. Secondly, my point here is not that we shouldn't have a page with things that might be abbreviated GCPC, but let's put it at List of things that might be abbreviated GCPC. What we have at the minute is a WP:DAB page which says at the bottom This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title, but we don't actually have articles on any of these things. Thirdly, what is the point of typing GCPC into Google, and then taking the hits from the first page and turning them into a DAB page? If people want to know what GCPC might stand for, then surely they can type it into Google themselves. That's all! Chris (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It looks like we have at least two genuine DAB entries (thanks Colonel Warden), but my comment about removing inappropriate entries still stands...
 * Comment. I think DAB pages should only have entries that link to articles that actually mention the DAB subject - they are, after all, supposed to be aids to navigating around Wikipedia, not substitutes for Google. So an entry that says, say, "GCPC can mean xxxxx, and there is one in Bolton" doesn't make sense unless Bolton at least mentions the xxxxx, as it is directing people to somewhere they won't find what they're looking for. I think all such entries should be removed from this DAB page and then a keep/delete decision should be made based on whatever is left . -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The Greater Cairo Planning Commission seems quite notable and is commonly referred to by this acronym. As this has not even been mentioned above, we seem to have only gotten started.   Colonel Warden (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to Freakshownerd: You asked about redlinks on dab pages, MOS:DABRL is the relevant guide. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And the guideline makes it clear that it's okay to have useful redlinks. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

*Delete. Unecessary duplication of information already available on wikipedia. Frank Fascarelli (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC) User:Frank Fascarelli is the newest incarnation of banned editor User:Torkmann.
 * 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.