Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Rogers House


 * 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, now has dab targets.  Sandstein  19:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

John Rogers House

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

This is an unneeded disambiguation page as there is currently no articles of this name. This was originally prodded but was removed with a message saying that the John Rogers House is notable. I am not here arguing whether these houses are notable, but that if there are no Wikipedia articles for a certain disambiguation, then there is no need to disambiguate it. Note: This can always be recreated if there is a need for it in the future, but right now its not needed. Tavix (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete—clearly not currently required.--Grahame (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Delete, obviously. As Tavix says, if articles about more than one John Rogers House are created, this dab page can be recreated. Dab pages are not list pages, where redlinks can be included to signal the need for specific articles. Deor (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that I've taken a closer look at the Manual of Style, I see that WP:MOSDAB would allow (I think) the appearance of entries of the form "John Rogers House (Branford, Connecticut), a Registered Historic Place in New Haven County, Connecticut" in dab pages. But I still think that a dab page in which all the entries are of this sort is unnecessary. Deor (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep now that articles have been created, but reiterating my opinion that dab pages consisting entirely of redlinked entries are deletable. According to WP:DAB, "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles" (my emphasis); and whereas redlinks in list articles can serve the purpose of indicating articles in need of creation, such use of them in disambiguation pages is to be discouraged. Deor (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The dab page is actually very informative. One searching for "John Rogers House" now knows that there are four different places with that name, and knows the States where they are situated. In addition, articles on National Historic Registered Places are created by the dozens on a daily basis (I know, I patrol new pages). It won't be long before there are articles on atleast two of the listed places. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But you can also find that information if you go to List of National Register of Historic Places entries and search for Knox County Courthouse. This is a disambiguation and not a list, and therefore goes against what a disambiguation is used for. "n addition, articles on National Historic Registered Places are created by the dozens on a daily basis" This disambig was created several months ago and there still isn't any signs that any of the articles are going to be created. If any of the articles are created, wouldn't it make logical sense just to recreate it? Right now, however, this "disambiguation" goes against policies. Disambiguation pages are "non-article pages that serve only to refer users to other Wikipedia pages." This doesn't refer to any pages. THERE ARE NONE! There are plenty more points I can bring up, but hopefully you get the point. Tavix (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I took a few minutes and wrote one of the articles, addressing your objection. This particular AfD now appears to be moot. Alansohn (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:MOSDAB states that "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when another article also includes that red link." All of these red-linked articles listed here appear to have inbound links from historic article lists by various geographic criteria. I see no reason, certainly on a policy basis, that would require deletion of this article. Alansohn (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Yes, but if you read carefully you will see that is for links that are included within other blue links. An entire page of redlinks is not what a disambiguation is for. They are "non-article pages that serve only to refer users to other Wikipedia pages" and this one doesn't do that. Tavix (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note What are "links that are included within other blue links"? I assume you mean with?  If so, note that the example given in the "redlink" section ("Flibbygibby") contains two entries, both of which are non-existant.  That's implicit acceptance that a page containing non-existant articles is appropriate (and in any case, see my comments below). Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep 1. For a reader of the encyclopedia, the disambiguation page itself provides information on the location of the property, AND serves notice that there are multiple properties with the same name. Those are pertinent pieces of information when using Wikipedia as a starting reference point.  Minimal information, yes, but hardly unuseful. 2. As for style rules, note WP:MOSDAB: "For every style suggestion above, there is some page which has a good reason to do something else. These guidelines are intended for consistency, but usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. So ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason."  Utilty to the reader here trumps other style requirements. 3. For an editor of the encyclopedia, it's nice to know up front that an article should be unambiguously named; disambiguation pages are useful to flag repeated property names. For example, there are (at least) two Park Avenue Historic District, as I found when I wrote the Detroit article (and moved the Talahassee article, and edited links thereto). It's not a disaster to have to rename and relink, but it needn't be necessary, either. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Cart before horse: disambiguation pages are internal navigation tools and so far here there's nothing TO disambiguate. Write the articles first - or at least one.HeartofaDog (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep One article has been written, and as inherently notable buildings it's highly likely that the others will be written. Since none of them has a better reason to be called "John Rogers House" (without geographical disambiguation) than the other two, we need to have a disambiguation page here.  Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The sensible way round, for future reference, is nevertheless to write the article(s) first, and to dab them afterwards. HeartofaDog (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my explanation at User talk:Tavix why creating the disambiguation is helpful. doncram (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that Tavix's nomination of this disambiguation was more or less in good faith, but, as I explain in User talk:Tavix, there is considerable value provided in disambiguation of NRHP pages. It saves considerable amounts of work later, if the first NRHP page created under a common name is the disambiguation page pointing out all the NRHP sites, rather than a page for just one of the NRHPs (see that user talk page for expansion on this point).  I also ask that Tavix withdraw this AfD nomination. doncram (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It now has two blue linked article and the third has a bluelink to the article that refers to it. The nominator should immediately withdraw this. clariosophic (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, and a barnstar to Alansohn, for implementing WP:SOFIXIT.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  23:12, 20 August 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.