Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walnut Street Historic District


 * 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. Blueboy96 14:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Walnut Street Historic District

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

This is an unneeded disambiguation as the disambiguation doesn't direct anywhere. This was originally prodded but was removed by the author of the disambiguation. Tavix (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - as the nom said, it goes to nowhere.-- S R X  01:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per my !vote and follow-up comment at Articles for deletion/John Rogers House‎. Deor (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep now that articles have been created, but reiterating my opinion that dab pages consisting entirely of redlinked entries are deletable. According to WP:DAB, "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles" (my emphasis); and whereas redlinks in list articles can serve the purpose of indicating articles in need of creation, such use of them in disambiguation pages is to be discouraged. Deor (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as utterly unnecessary, at least for now. --Alinnisawest(talk) 02:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The dab page is actually very informative. One searching for "Walnut Street Historic District" now knows that there are nine different places with that name, and knows the States where they are situated. In addition, articles on National Historic Registered Places are created by the dozens on a daily basis (I know, I patrol new pages). It won't be long before there are articles on at least two of the listed places. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I am assuming good faith that these are real places. Any one is probably notable, so a disambig page is certainly a good thing. It does seem rather odd to start this way, maybe the author has a plan to start the articles too. Borock (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I was thinking the same thing, but this was created back in June and there are still no articles of this name. Even though the articles may be created in the future, it doesn't make any sense to create the disambiguation months before you even start to create the articles. Every single one of the links are redlinked so that goes against what a disambiguation is for which is for "non-article pages that serve only to refer users to other Wikipedia pages." THERE ARE NO PAGES! Do you see how unuseful this is? Right now this certainly isn't a disambiguation because there are no pages!. Tavix (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:MOSDAB states that "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when another article also includes that red link." All of these red-linked articles listed here appear to have inbound links from historic article lists by various geographic criteria. I see no reason, certainly on a policy basis, that would require deletion of this article. Alansohn (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But if you also read in the MOSDAB, you find that "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term." When there are no wikipedia articles to choose from, it goes against what this sentance is stated. Although the articles DO have a possiblity of being created in the future, they serve no purpose of linking to other articles and is thus unuseful.


 * Keep 1. For a reader of the encyclopedia, the disambiguation page itself provides information on the location of the historic district, AND serves notice that there are multiple districts with the same name. Those are pertinent pieces of information when using Wikipedia as a starting reference point.  Minimal information, yes, but hardly unuseful. 2. As for style rules, note WP:MOSDAB: "For every style suggestion above, there is some page which has a good reason to do something else. These guidelines are intended for consistency, but usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. So ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason."  Utilty to the reader here trumps other style requirements. 3. For an editor of the encyclopedia, it's nice to know up front that an article should be unambiguously named; disambiguation pages are useful to flag repeated property names. For example, there are (at least) two Park Avenue Historic District, as I found when I wrote the Detroit article (and moved the Talahassee article, and edited links thereto). It's not a disaster to have to rename and relink, but it needn't be necessary, either. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep They're notable, merely need to be noticed by authors. This page will help articles get created following naming conventions and helps confirm one does not yet exist.  -- SEWilco (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Coatrack.  Step 1: Create an article.  Step 2: set up links.  Do not grab an almanac and assume that every potential place is properly set up by a redlink.  I've gone through the 17XX in literature articles, and people will create a red link for every work by every author.  This is hilarious when the work is Works or Complete Poems or Autobiography.  However, without investigating, without researching, without knowing, they set up the red links.  This is a bad practice that results in bad pages like this one.  Utgard Loki (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * N.B. Walnut Street Historic District (Chaska, Minnesota) has been created. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As has Walnut Street Historic District (Oneonta, New York). Red links that can never be pages are different to those that are not yet pages. I'm not going to spend the day arguing at AfDs. Instead I'll create the stubs. They appear notable. Seems like a more productive use of time to me. In other words, keep. TravellingCari  15:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Four articles have already been written: nominator's reason for nomination is obsolete, as this is quite a useful page. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This disambiguation page looks useful to me. Kestenbaum (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nom's concerns have been addressed. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  11:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. Highly recommend WP:SOFIXIT to nom. Places on the National Register of Historic Places are very easy to research online, and it would take less time to write a decent stub than to keep nominating these disambiguation pages.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  00:43, 22 August 2008 (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.