Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Men's Christian Association Building


 * 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   redirect to YMCA (disambiguation). JohnCD (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Young Men's Christian Association Building
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Disambiguation page with no blue links, and no logical blue links to add. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  01:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. One, there are a lot of YMCA buildings, and two, non-editors won't view this page anyway.--T3h 1337 b0y (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  01:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Criterion G6 covers orphaned disambig pages. So tagged. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep No, this is a legitimate disambiguation page, among the wikipedia-notable places that are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.  I put a "hangon" to stop the Speedy delete, i hope that is correct procedure and will stop that.  I need a few minutes to clean it up to meet MOSDAB guidelines fully, MOS:DABRL in particular.  Question:  did i see indication that there was a previous AFD about this, with decision to Keep?  Where is that AFD discussion, could someone please provide a link?  I believe this should probably be SPEEDY KEEP, actually, but i would like to see the previous discussion. --doncram (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The articles need to be created for this disambig page to be valid. Now to me any building listed on the NRHP gets a free pass at notability, so I don't think there would be any problem getting these articles kept, but until then, the disambig page is just useless. The reason I did not hesitate to tag it for speedy is that it's been sitting there with only redlinks for a year and a half. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 03:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When i created this article in September 2008 the standards were different, and tt wasn't later tagged by WikiProject NRHP on the Talk page as it should have been, so it missed my cleanup drive through 3,000 such disambiguation pages, completed recently. In particular it had not gotten the NRHP dab needing cleanup tag which would have gotten my attention.  If you come across any other NRHP ones, if you can remember to let me know, please do.  Thank you, whoever did contact me at my Talk page.  And, no, the disambiguation is not useless:  it clarifies to editors that they should not create an article for one specific place at the general name, i.e. that disambiguating phrase it needed.  And for readers and editors both it now points them to the NRHP list-articles with info about these specific places, and clarifies that a) there is no separate article under any other name for either of these (allowing them to stop looking under "YMCA Building" or other alternative names possible, and b) communicates accurately that the topic is wikipedia-notable and an article can be created. --doncram (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, i am not surprised to find the larger stash of YMCA building disambiguation at YMCA (disambiguation), which covers places like "YMCA Building" and other variations already. This 2 item page should be merged and redirected to that.  I've done other mergers of sets of disambiguation covering variations on Young Women's Christian Association, and on Elks Buildings, and so on, before.  This is just one stray 2 item page that shoulda been swept into the consolidation, but wasn't.  If you all will kindly close this AFD and remove the Speedy Delete and all this mess, i will implement that merger. --doncram (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The nomination was just wrong, it seems to me. Comment that there are no logical blue links to add is just wrong, anyhow.  The well-defined procedure for considering validity of red-links on a disambiguation page is to click on the red-link, then click on "what links here".  For the 2 items on this page, that leads to the NRHP list articles which define these two places, give addresses and coordinates and other context.  I added those NRHP list articles now as appropriate supporting bluelinks.  Also, there appears to be another one or two alternate bluelinks that could be added;  the Albany one is also linked from Downtown Albany Historic District(?) or something like that.  --doncram (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Further question The deletion nom message cites "disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title. Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance. See CSD G6." Does that reflect any official policy/guideline anywhere, or is that made up for this specific case?  Because, it conflicts with Disambiguation policy about valid red-links having supporting blue-links.  It has been held in fairly recent discussions at WikiProject Disambiguation that it is okay to have in the English wikipedia, as it has been okay for some time in German wikipedia, disambiguation pages that have all primary red-links as long as they each have proper supporting bluelinks.  So, if this is a quote from some policy/guideline somewhere, there is a conflict that needs to be cleared up.  If this is just the deletion nominator's personal view, we should discuss and clear up that, too.  Thanks! --doncram (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to [YMCA (disambiguation)]. see comments below. i personally dont like the redlinks here, i find it not very useful, though of course the structures are mentioned in the blue linked articles, and apparently doncram points out this is allowed now (i accept that despite my bias). people will type "ymca building" or "young mens... building or "ymca and all should link to only one disambig for simplicity and ease of navigation. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

But whatever happens, please do not replay this debate on this AfD. It is too multifaceted for this forum and has already been done at least 2 other times that I know of. Shadowjams (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa!, let's not have this debate yet again! doncram... why debate this here... this has all been done before. Don't write anything else until you've seen this link. I am amazed nobody has brought up, especially doncram. Last I was involved, there was an uneasy truce between the disambiguation project and the NRHP project regarding exactly these kinds of edits (I had no idea that CSD tag existed actually). If that issue needs re-opened I'd suggest it's done at WP:Disambiguation rather than the project page. In the meantime, this AfD should probably be put on hold (closed with no prejudice) until the broader discussion is finished.
 * Well, the debate here needs to be closed somehow. Mercurywoodrose above, Boleyn2 below, and i so far agree that the AFD should be closed.  And no one would object to redirecting the page to the bigger, combo dab about YMCA buildings.  There are other issues in the discussion on NRHP dab pages which don't need to be addressed here, yes.  Anyone is welcome to join and discuss there, yes, but this current AFD does need to be finished in some way. --doncram (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a redirect to YMCA (disambiguation).-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  23:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree with Shadowjams, Boleyn2 (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment any further debate should occur in another forum. i checked the aforementioned link to the NRHP debate. my librarianish brain is buzzing, too much to think about right now, interesting comments from many well intentioned and cogent editors. Im now absolutely ok with suspending this AFD OR keep.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Time to close this The deletion nominator Fabrictramp agrees that redirect is fine. I as creator/developer am fine with redirect to the larger, merged dab page for notable YMCA buildings.  Everyone is fine with that.  Please someone just close this now (as Keep / Redirect).  I already put the entries from this dab page into the bigger one.  All that is left is to redirect this one to it. --doncram (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2010 (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.