Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powiat bielski


 * 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   no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Powiat bielski

 * – ( View AfD View log )

(a)DAB page with only 2 entries, (b)Existing DAB links at the top of each listed page, (c)Bielski DAB page already has the entries for both pages, and (d) per established WPP nomenclature, County is used instead of Powiat in article names. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  —Ajh1492 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well yes, but the Polish names with "powiat" redirect to the corresponding "county" articles, and in this case it happens that one "powiat" title can correspond to either of two "county" titles; neither of them seems especially primary over the other, so the two-entry dab page seems the most convenient solution. It could be redirected to Bielski, but that would just make a bit of extra trouble for anyone entering "powiat bielski" into the search box, and I don't see the benefit.--Kotniski (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I just wonder what the chances are that someone would search on powiat bielsk on EN:WP... Just saying that if we're using county instead of powiat (which I don't disagree with), then we need to consistently use it across EN:WP. I thought two-entry dab pages were frowned upon and instead to use dab headers on the pages. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They're frowned upon only if one of the two items can reasonably be considered a primary topic. In this case I think it would be misleading to suggest that powiat bielski refers primarily to one of these counties rather than the other. If there's no primary topic, then two-entry dab pages are quite OK.--Kotniski (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Move to Bielski County, keep as redirect. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 17:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The current article names are Bielsko County and Bielsk County, so I don't see what the benefit is in adding a nonexistent Bielski County to the mix. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with Kotniski, this is a valid disambiguation of two entities that happen to have different names in English, but the same name in Polish. There's no reason to assume no one will ever search by the Polish name. — Kpalion(talk) 16:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the need for the page especially since (1) the Counties have distinct names in English, (2) Each page does have DAB links at the top already, (3) there's a DBA page for Bielski which includes the two counties and (4) the fact that we're using County instead of Powiat as an article naming convention. I just don't see the need for the article name in Polish on English WP. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I also think PL:WP itself is wrong because if you go to the official websites of the two powiats, one refers to itself as the other as [] - so the confusion seems to be coming from PL:WP. I really think we out to reduce the confusing situation by following the lead of the powiats themselves and delete this DAB page - or create a 'Powiat bielsko redirect page to Bielsko County and turn this one into a redirect to Bielsk County and keep the DAB links at the top of the two articles. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2011 (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.