Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wachregiment


 * 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 Rename to Wachregiment (disambiguation).  Sandstein  19:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Wachregiment

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

These are all partial title matches. Perhaps sources exist for an overview broad-concept article, but it's not appropriate as a disambiguation page. buidhe 17:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please discuss the argument that a dab page is not needed. Renaming it would not change that.
 * Rename to Wachregiment (disambiguation) as there are clearly multiple potential matches and WP:NOPRIMARY. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename to Wachregiment (disambiguation) as per Eggishorn. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To address the relisting comment: the original nomination did not make an argument about disambiguation other than, "...it's not appropriate". Well, why?  Renaming would comply with the WP:DAB policy: there are clearly multiple possible matches for "wachtregiment" as a search term, it is a plausible search term, the page contains redirects to 5 possible results, all of which are notable on their own, and none of the results is primary.  Hence, renaming to follow the naming standard for all other disambiguation pages and keeping it is beneficial to the project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but all the results are partial title matches. None of them are named, standalone as "Wachregiment"—there are other words in the names. WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. buidhe 19:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ATA is not policy, it's an essay and nothing more. WP:DAB, on the other hand, is an editing guideline and the whole point of the project is to be useful.  Lastly, the standard isn't "will the entire target title be used as a search term", it's "will the redirecting title be used as a search term".  Which do you think a reader is more likely to type into a search box: "Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment" or "wachtregiment"? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:DAB says that dabs should not be created for partial title matches. b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 02:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to Wachregiment (disambiguation). I appreciate the reference to WP:Partial given above. Read closely you'll notice that partial title match DABs are not forbidden but restricted to certain circumstances. We have Add a link only 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—regardless of the article's title. For instance, the Mississippi River article could not feasibly be titled Mississippi, since that name is used by the US state article, but it is included at Mississippi (disambiguation) because its subject is often called "the Mississippi". and It is entirely proper to include such place names in disambiguation pages with the specific title (North Carolina is properly listed at Carolina (disambiguation)); but only exceptionally in the generic title (we do not expect to see North Carolina in North (disambiguation), just as we do not expect to see Mississippi River in River (disambiguation)). Having reviewed that and given the search term is plausible and that there is no primary, a DAB is appropriate. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename List of wachregiments. None of the entries qualify for a dab page per WP:PTM; you don't see a gigantic Regiment (disambiguation), do you? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to this, but I'm not convinced LISTN has been demonstrated. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 21:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You know, I considered that, but I couldn't find discussion as a group or set, WP:LISTN, nor from going over the articles could I discern a common pattern beyond the name and being elite, as not all the units served a ceremonial function. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't want to bludgeon this discussion, but I don't know if I'll have time to get back to this again. Wachregiment is a logical search term, but it can't be redirected because it has five more or less similarly plausible targets. Readers should have some kind of navigational assistance if they use that search term to help them find what they're looking for. If there is a rule which prevents us from providing that assistance, we should just ignore it. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.