Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludington House

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. Michig (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ludington House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Disambiguation page for articles that are all red linked. Caorongjin (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A dab page is supposed to disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not red-links without documented notability. The links do not even exist in draft form and do not appear likely ever to become valid Wikipedia articles. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• additional comment. One red link is listed on NRHP. The name is also an alias for another NRHP red link. The best solution is a hat note if and when Ludington House (Lawrence, Kansas) is created. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: have cleaned up the dab page. All four houses get a mention in the encyclopedia, and are valid dab page entries. PamD 09:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All entries meet MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dab pages are not search indices. All-redlink dab pages are very rare and usually speedily deleted. Of the 4 entries, one is not called Ludington House, one is simply part of an inset illustration without explanation on an 1872 map, one is an ad for a current B&B, and only one is independently notable. The passing mentions are not substantial and the page gets in the way of the search engine. Station1 (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As stated, these are all red links. This would be of no use to someone using Wikipedia. Beasting123 (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would say that the nominator and "Keep" voters are not familiar with disambiguation page guidelines, if they were voting with respect to the current disambiguation page (which has been cleaned up by User:PamD and perhaps others). Please see MOS:DABRL which, if I recall correctly, provides the clarification that a redlink item can be a valid disambiguation page entry, provided that a supporting bluelink is included which shows usage of the redlink in context. In this dab page there are 100 percent valid items such as Ludington House (Lawrence, Kansas) (currently a redlink) a historic residence listed on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Douglas County, Kansas, United States. --Doncram (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please note: in order to "win" this AFD, I could easily create a stub article for Ludington House (Lawrence, Kansas), which we know is a valid Wikipedia topic because the place is NRHP-listed and will sooner or later have an article created. And there are other places referred to, at least sometimes, as "Ludington House". Then you all agree the disambiguation page would be okay, right? So then obviously it would be silly to delete the disambiguation page now, only to require recreating it later, right? Delete voters, please consider striking your delete votes, or please do comment further and/or ask questions towards clearing up misunderstandings here. If you really doubt my "expertise" about this, feel free to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation or anywhere else to round up other disambiguation-focused experts. Sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PamD above. MB 10:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and convert to SIA. The easiest thing to do with pages like this which are actually useful but break disambiguation page guidelines is to convert them to an SIA (a list of houses called "Ludington House"). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MOS:DABMENTION etc., etc. If deleted, it could be created as a redirect to any one of the blue links in the disambiguation page, which is exactly why it's a disambiguation page, to solve the technical issue of not being able to redirect to more than one of them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are multiple ways to handle this unusual article, but the MOS/DABRL issue seems to have been addressed, leaving the issues of "getting in the way of the search engine" and "this should be an SIA". The latter one is not a deletion issue, and can be handled elsewhere. As for getting in the way of the search engine, maybe, but like other dab pages this one helps a casual reader get immediate context on the various possibilities for the term. Put another way, there's not a significant problem here that deletion will solve, so the rest can be handled away from AfD. Bakazaka (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2018 (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.