Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hăghiac


 * 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no delete !votes (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 20:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hăghiac

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing to disambiguate here. There are no articles for these villages and en.wiki is not a wiki-dictionary to disambiguate terms and proper names. XXN, 22:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Similar case: Hoancă. --XXN, 22:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are many such disambiguation pages that don't have articles yet. Hăghiac on the Romanian wiki shows these villages do exist. It is a plausible search term and hopefully someone will make the articles. —Мандичка YO 😜 03:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, two valid entries, neither primary topic. older ≠ wiser 09:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: valid and useful dab page.  Pam  D  10:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep,, both entries are valid and meet MOS:DABMENTION. It is in no way a dictionary definition, but each entry gives a link to an article with information on a place named Haghiac. That is exactly what a disambiguation page is about - showing readers to pages where they can find information on that topic, whether that information is short or long. It is not totally relevant to this discussion as the page is valid anyway, but both entries would meet WP:NPLACE too. Would the nominator consider removing the nomination and closing this? Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no sense in such false disambiguation pages for non-existing articles. Here, on en.wp, probably does not exists a single article about a Romanian village, but there are tonns of such false disambiguation pages with no direct links to relevant articles with titles containing the disambiguated term! With similar succes we can create disambiguation pages for all streets around the world, 98% of them being non-notable and thereby disambigs being useless. Well, you can close this debate, but there is necessary an adjustment to related policy to not admit such ″disambiguations″. --XXN, 16:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment That's a disappointing response. AfD is not here for you to nominate articles because you think the guidelines shouldn't allow them, but because you think they don't meet thr guidelines. Changing guidelines is a topic for discussion elsewhere. This is in no way a false disambiguation page. It links to relevant articles containing information on the disambiguated term, and it's information the reader is interested in, and that your proposal would hide from them. No, we couldn't create dabs for all street names, because they are not things worth mentioning in articles, so there would be no basis for a dab entry for the vast, vast majority of road names. The fact that there aren't many articles on Romania shows room for improvement on our coverage of non-Anglophone topics, not a reason to try to make the information harder for readers to find. As you won't remove your nomination, despite your mistake being pointed out to you by several editors, other editors will have to waste their time as this will probably have to remain open for several days. Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Both places now have articles. Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I withdraw my nomination. Discussion can be closed.--XXN, 01:24, 2 November 2015 (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.