Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFRAA

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 delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IFRAA

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

DAB page with no actual articles. One has been deleted the other although there’s an article link it is not mentioned in the article so also does not belong. If there were other entries then could just delete these two but that would leave none. Neither is a plausible redirect target leaving only delete. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

✈ 05:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Open-and-shut case : Noyster (talk), 09:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~

MOS:DABRL, it just needed the blue link changed on the line, which I did after clicking on what links here. I'm not sure if additional entries were looked for? Interfaith Forum on Religion, Art & Architecture (IFRAA) is mentioned on several WP articles. It's never going to be the most looked-up dab, but do its two entries meet guidelines? Yes. Is it's see also valid? Yes. If occasionally a reader types in 'IFRAA' into WP, we should show them what we have, and we do have something, however little. Deletion goes against guidelines and brings no benefit. Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Those both seem to be referring to the same thing, the Interfaith Forum on Religion, Art & Architecture, these people: faithandform.com. And we should not have multiple entries per entity. Otherwise why stop at two, why not list all the articles mentioning it? As that is not how disambiguation pages work. You need at least two topics, ideally more.

As it is keeping the dab page has no benefit, and may actually be detrimental. Nothing should be linking to this dab page, so the only way anyone can find it is via a web search. But if someone searches the web for IFRAA they would be much better served by following links directly to the articles mentioning it, or links to other than WP if we actually have no page for the IFRAA and so no actual content on them.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JohnBlackburne, what makes you think the International Federation for Religious Art and Architecture and the Interfaith Forum on Religion, Art & Architecture are the same? I could find very little on the International Federation - do you think that's a typing error in the articles? If they are, then of course there's no need for a dab, but if they are separate then there is. Boleyn (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The website referenced in the Lotus Temple article refers only to "Interfaith Forum". The only internet hits for "International Federation..." are in relation to that one award for the one building; it is presumably a mistake for "Interfaith Forum" that has propagated over a few websites. In short we have one topic only: delete-squared: Noyster (talk), 10:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quite right, the link in Lotis Temple to International Federation is a typo. Striking my last comment and changing to delete. Boleyn (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2016 (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.