Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Călacea
- 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. ]
Călacea
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Călacea (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)
I previously nominated this disambiguation page for speedy deletion for
WP:G14 states "This applies to disambiguation pages which regardless of title, disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages". This disambiguation page does not disambiguate any pages with the name "Călacea" so it should be deleted. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Since Wikipedia is meant to be a gazeteer, is there any reason for us not to have articles on these villages. Unless someone can show why these villages should be excluded, we should keep this disambiguation page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- It disambiguates only three red links which is not what a disambiguation page is supposed to do. One of the dos and don'ts about disambiguation pages is "Don't include red links unless used in articles". The red links only link back to the disambiguation page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Another thing to mention is that the disambiguation page is orphaned as it is not linked by any mainspace articles. See this. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Dab pages are not meant to have incoming links (WP:INTDAB). – Uanfala (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)]
- Dab pages are not meant to have incoming links (
- Another thing to mention is that the disambiguation page is orphaned as it is not linked by any mainspace articles. See this. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- It disambiguates only three red links which is not what a disambiguation page is supposed to do. One of the dos and don'ts about disambiguation pages is "Don't include red links unless used in articles". The red links only link back to the disambiguation page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. The page disambiguates three topics, all of which are linked to articles that pass WP:DABMENTION. – Uanfala (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2019 (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.