Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tijuana (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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 01:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Tijuana (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Created by a banned editor. Ignoring this as it is allegedly useful, none of the current links are known as "Tijuana" alone (example: "Tijuana"). As neither of the enlisted terms is known as "Tijuana" the page loses its function of disambiguation page. For a further reference, see Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages. ©  Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 20:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and WP:PTM as nothing else is known as "Tijuana". -- Tavix ( talk ) 03:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing rationale to keep, because Kraxler makes good points that are impossible to ignore. The disambiguation is useful, so it's not helping anyone by deleting it. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The other three entries (Playas de Tijuana, Tijuana River Estuary, Tijuana Cartel), and assorted partial matches may be listed in the "See also" section. Kraxler (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment As Tavix notes, don't close a discussion for a still-existing article unless the close is "keep" or "no consensus". A "deleted" close isn't a good idea until/unless the article's deleted, simply because deletion hasn't happened and can be opposed.  Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PTM which expressly allows entries "if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context" - That's exactly the case here:
 * Tijuana, evidently
 * Tijuana Municipality, may be referred to as Tijuana without the "municipality", both by being uncertain about the exact location within or outside the actual city limits, or by talking about the region, including area more than just the city
 * Tijuana metropolitan area, similar to the above, saying like "Greater Tijuana" or the "Tijuana region" has x inhabitants, for example, omitting the awkward "metropolitan area" or just the "metropolitan" part for brevity
 * Tijuana River, rivers are many times referred to as "the [river name]" as in "The Tijuana flows into the Pacific Ocean."
 * Keep - I agree with the arguments made by Kraxler. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kraxler; I've reformatted the page as a dab page where there exists a primary topoic. Pam  D  21:50, 8 September 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.