Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staten Island (disambiguation)

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 of the debate was Keep. enochlau (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary disambiguation page. Same can be accomplished with link and text I have placed at the top of Staten Island. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Disambig pages that disambiguate only two pages are OK. And I don't want to vote on every one of them, so let's just keep them all :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-04 02:53Z
• Keep. I generally agree with the above comment, and this is a potentially useful disambiguation. 23skidoo 06:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that there are alot of useful disambigs for 2 articles, but this is not something that really calls for such a page. There are very few links to this page, and a vast majority of those are from non-article pages. I think that the italicized link on top of the Staten Island, New York page seems to be enough. Youngamerican 06:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with above. --Daveb 07:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Ambivalent. I wanted to say keep, because I wanted to be noble and say we were fighting Systemic Bias, however the Isla de los Estados article translates Estados to States (as I would have—not that I'm any great translator). But it also mentions Isla de los Estados was named after the Netherlands Staten Generaal. So basically, I'm confused, and I don't know what to do. Now wasn't that helpful? D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 08:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no idea if this is relevent to this discusion, but some German words pluralise to end "-en", and Dutch is similar to German in many respects, so this might be what has happened to make the word translate as "Staten" and not "state". But don't quote me on this :). Evil Eye 12:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Staten Island is unambiguous :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see nothing wrong with allowing this disambig page to continue existing. Evil Eye 12:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a chance this dab may be expanded? = Mgm|^(talk) 13:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt it. I cannot find any other use of Staten Island as a toponym. the only other possibility would be the Staten Island Ferry, but I suspect people searching for that particular ferry service would include the term ferry in any search. Youngamerican 15:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and redirect to Staten Island. That way, if a dab is actually needed here in the future, we have it. There's just no reason to delete it (no harm in keeping it as a redirect that no one will ever visit). Tedernst | talk 16:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a note, the only article that currently links to this dab page (other than Staten Island, which is removed for the moment) is Generality Lands (last sentence), which refers to why these two are named the same. However, we could also just add the two separate links to that page for the two islands. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • disambiguation pages should never have links to them - there's a whole wikipedia project to fix those that do WP:DPL - so let's not use that criteria as a reason to keep or delete Tedernst | talk 18:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep now has three things on it. BL kiss the lizard 06:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Staten Island" is unambiguous, and padding the list doesn't change that. --Calton | Talk 08:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this now disambiguates three seperate articles. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Two entries – No. Three entries – Yes. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 07:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. the disamb makes sense. Kingturtle 05:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The second entry is a stretch, and the third seems to misunderstand the point of a disambiguation. Do we believe that someone is going to type in "staten island" when looking for the historical reference rather typing "New Zealand"? Noting that Staten Landt is already a redirect to NZ, there is really no reason for this to exist. - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:28, 9 January 2006 (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.