Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New England frog


 * 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

New England frog
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nobody would ever search under "New England frog" for any of the frogs listed on this disambiguation page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. A valid disambig page, and the grok.se stats counter shows that it gets used. -- 101.117.2.126 (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep this and the other frog DAB pages. No reason was given why "nobody would ever search" for this term.  Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete unlike the members of the dab page "ornate frog", none of the above species are known as the "New England frog". A search of GoogleScholar showed no (zero) frog species known as the "New England frog", similarly a more general search on Google showed no such identification. Anomalocaris's point is well taken, this is not a likely search term, and none of the outcomes are so known.  As a result of none of these being known as the "New England frog", this would seem to fall under WP:Disambiguation. A List of New England frogs would be a very different matter, and a much longer list. --Bejnar (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to agree with Bejnar that there is no indication that there are any frogs commonly having the name "New England frog". Moreover, this disambiguation page introduces confusion.  Frogs native to the New England region of the US are generically referred to as New England frog species. I am One of Many (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep It is just a Dab page and it has related pages. Frmorrison (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a WP:PTM violation, and http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/New%20England%20frog indicates this is not a common search term, either. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - it's a plausible search term, and the page directs readers to what I suspect they'd be searching for. Presupposing that readers have perfect knowledge of a topic they're searching for in an encyclopaedia is daft; they're likely to make such small mistakes, an to make the encyclopaedia useful we should send them to what they're looking for. Wily D  13:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - A usefull disambig page, don't see why it should be deleted. --Klp363 (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - The two species listed have similar enough names (or secondary names) to warrent this disambiguation page. Altamel (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2014 (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.