Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbol

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbol

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a pseudo-disambiguation page. If topics were notable they would have at the very least an infra-stub here. Per Wikipedia:MOSDAB, entries must have at least a blue link, and sending readers to external Wikipedias is as helpful as sending them back to do a Google search. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Creator here. Alas, it's not the case that all notable topics already have articles on Wikipedia (if there were, the encyclopedia wouldn't be growing any more). Both topics are notable (WP:GEOLAND), and interlanguage links are acceptable on dab pages (see this discussion). If you would like to apply a stricter criterion, you could requite WP:DABMENTION: currently, only of the two entries meets it; for the second one to meet it, the linked English article will need to be expanded appropriately. That's a problem with the linked article, not with the dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are: 3 albums, 8 songs, and 1 record label titled "Arbol"/"Árbol". Out of those 11 topics, only 3 authors have articles here (Luis Eduardo Aute, Kinto Sol and Atahualpa Yupanqui). In any way they should be included because their own article never mention the existence of those songs. Equally, in any way we should send readers to read the (inexistent) article of La Sarita to (let's say) Chabacano Wikipedia just because the article exists there (if existed). Disambiguation pages are not a way to tell people topics exist. As said by WP:Disambiguation itself "[dab pages exist because] there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead". The only article mentioning the word "Arbol" is Antas de Ulla. Not being included in a disambiguation is not an indicator the topic doesn't exist, it is an indicator that the English Wikipedia cannot offer information about such topic because it is not mentioned in our website. Sending people to other places is not our job either, it's Wikidata's, and per MOS:DABNOLINK "Never include external links, either as entries or in descriptions [and] A disambiguation page should not be made up completely of red links." (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both entries have blue links, and as obvious from the discussion I've linked above, these types of links are widely accepted. The only actual bone of contention is whether the entries should also meet DABMENTION. – Uanfala (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both entries have blue links, but only one mentions a parish called Arbol. Instead of taking it personal, just go and fix the problem you are creating. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were two problems. One was that neither of the two notable encyclopedic topics with the name "Arbol" was accessible via the search results (which got swamped by partial title matches). I've tried to solve this by creating this dab page. The other problem is editors rushing to delete stuff based on mechanistic misapplication of style guidelines. This, I'm afraid, I'm not able to fix. – Uanfala (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the second problem is that one editor rushed to include stuff that wasn't ambiguous on English Wikipedia; other editors attempted to fix it (and fixing quickly is not the same as "rushed to") but were reverted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the just-finished Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 28#Árbol (disambiguation) discussion. If the topics are English-Wikipedia-notable, just write the article first. If not, future Wikipedia can handle future Wikipedia navigation needs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep. Not in agreement with the page's creator in regard to interlanguage links (ILLs). WP:DAB#Interlanguage links does not just mean those found in the left sidebar. They also include ILLs like those found in entries on the Arbor dab page. ILLs should not be used to point to articles in other-language Wikipedias on disambiguation pages, even if there are valid blue links to enwiki articles. And speaking of valid blue links, WP:DABMENTION does not need a rewrite. It makes good sense that a red linked entry on a dab page should be mentioned in a referenced blue linked article. Above, mention is made that the linked article, Vilalba, could be "expanded appropriately". So why hasn't Vilalba been expanded yet to include mention of the parish at Arbol? That's probably because if one parish is mentioned, then all the parishes would have to be found and mentioned as is done in the other entry on the dab page, Antas de Ulla. The Arbol parish in Antas de Ulla is the only entry on this dab page that is valid in accord with the guideline. So this adds up to a one entry disambiguation page that is not helpful to readers. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 07:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Page creator has met the guideline's requirement for mention of Árbol in blue linked references, ~~The other guideline that disallows ILLs to other-language articles has not yet been met; however, that for me is not a deal breaker,~~ so I've changed my !vote to "keep". P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 16:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded Vilalba with a list of parishes, so as far as I can see, now both entries on the dab page meet WP:DABMENTION. – Uanfala (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the additions to the encyclopedia. That's not a "crazy idea", that's what was suggested be done in the first place, put content you felt was needed in the encyclopedia in the encyclopedia. Striking my !vote above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Both entries meet WP:DABMENTION, and there doesn't seem to be a clear primary topic, so this is okay per WP:TWODABS. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notwithstanding the history (TL;DR), right now this disambiguation page is perfectly valid. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.