Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kajang (disambiguation)


 * 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. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 23:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Kajang (disambiguation)

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

A disambiguation page with only one blue link. The page was PRODed by User:PatGallacher with the comment, "Unnecessary page - see talk." PROD was contested by User:B.Wind, who has expressed the opinion that DAB pages are not eligible for PROD, but are eligible for AfD.

At Talk:Kajang (disambiguation) PatGallacher wrote, "This is an unnecessary page. At present we do not have an article on the Indonesian town, it remains to be seen if we will get one. However, even if we do, this page will still be unnecessary since either:-

a. The 2 Kajangs are of roughly equal importance, in which cage the Kajang article should be a disambiguation,

b. One Kajang is clearly more important than the other, in which case it should be the primary meaning and the second should be linked by a hatnote on the first.

Only if there is a 3rd Kajang, which I see no sign of, will this page become necessary. PatGallacher (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)"

Personally, I support deletion. Cnilep (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I stand by my previous comments. PatGallacher (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * According to my google searches, as well as the name of two places, Kajang is also a kind of satay dish and a Nigerian surname.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  21:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but we need articles on these subjects to justify keeping this page. If it was deleted, it would be easy to re-create it should the need arise. PatGallacher (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't think it's okay to have redlinks in a disambiguation page? I don't understand why not.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles. See WP:D and WP:MOSDAB. Red links are allowed, as long as they are "escorted" by blue links. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The exact MOS page is at MOS:DABRL, actually. :)  But my question was about PatGallacher's reasoning.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as prodded (and prod is applicable to disambiguation pages). -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Recasting !vote below
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll go with keep. Above, I have pointed out what I think is a substantial flaw in the "delete" arguments, which remains unrefuted. There are more than two possible meanings of "Kajang" and the fact that we do not yet have articles on some of those meanings does not seem relevant to me.  Contrary to claims presented above, redlinks are certainly permitted in disambiguation pages.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm !voting Keep now, but some clarifications here: Disambiguation pages do not list possible meanings for words, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor an indiscrimate list. The fact that we did not have articles on some of the entries is exactly relevant to determining whether a navigational page for resolving ambiguities among Wikipedia articles needs to list them. Red links are permitted on disambiguation pages as long as (a) an actual article uses the red link as well and (b) there is a blue link in the description of the entry on the disambiguation page so that navigational assistance is still rendered by the navigational page -- disambiguation pages aren't articles, and the reasons for including red links on articles (prompting and spurring development) are the same as the reasons for disambiguating (guiding the reader to the existing Wikipedia article sought). Those weren't flaws in the previous Delete arguments. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But even if hypothetical articles exist, there is at present no guarantee that these articles would be notable, encyclopedic etc.. If this article was deleted and such articles were created, it would be fairly trivial to re-create this article. PatGallacher (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no guarantee that any redlinked article would be notable, encyclopaedic, etc.. But it's still appropriate to have redlinks.  They serve as a prompt and a spur to build the encyclopaedia.  And "it would be easy to re-create" doesn't strike me as a good reason to delete anything, ever.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: MOS:DABRL has already been invoked, but as a reminder, "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link." There are currently no links to Kajang (Indonesia) outside the DAB. Cnilep (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That was absolutely true when Cnilep wrote it. This is because our geographical coverage of Indonesia is very incomplete.  I've fixed it now, which involved writing a stub on a South Sulawesi regency, and I've written another stub on Kajang (Indonesia).  This addresses the concern about redlinks on a disambiguation page, since all the said links are now blue. Interestingly, there is also a Kajang, Nigeria, which seems to be a town there (evidence).  That might explain "Kajang" as a Nigerian surname.  I won't write a stub about it for the moment, but I think this adds to the evidence that a disambiguation page is probably a good idea.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I struck through my !vote above, given the current presence of blue links. Cnilep (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems a perfectly good dab page now. Mjroots (talk) 11:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as it stands now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2009 (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.