Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qianliyan (disambiguation)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC) ‎[reply]

Qianliyan (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Qianliyan (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page containing the primary topic and only one other topic. AfD is issued after PROD got declined. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. 1st, the page has additional relevant dabs. They're simply being deleted by the nominator. 2nd, who ignores the reverts and refuses to take the discussion to the talk page. 3rd, yes, which they should knock off. Wiki's terrible WP:BIAS against non-European topics doesn't mean they're non-notable, as already (repeatedly) pointed out. I could end this waste of time by going through and creating stubs for all the topics but that isn't terribly helpful. The better outcome would just be for the nominator to recognize they're notable topics (try cursory googling for the name) and leave the necessary dab alone until full articles are created. — LlywelynII 06:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For the curious who might come in the middle of this, here's the notice on NmW's talk page to stop the disruptive editing and come to the talk page for a discussion, which they subsequently blanked and then copied with their own "warning" to my talk page... telling me to join the discussion that I initiated or else. At the end of this, editors might prefer I go through and create all the stubs instead of having only the dab page (fair enough, although I think it's unnecessary)... but obviously this editor shouldn't be acting like this. — LlywelynII 06:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, disambiguation pages disambiguate between topics on which we have articles. They come after the articles, not before. So yes, at least a stub must exist. This is nothing to do with laziness or bias, it's just a practical matter, similar to writing the book before attempting to write its index. Elemimele (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my original !vote: There are now multiple topics and likely to be more Elemimele (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[in response to the original post:] @Elemimele: but it's more helpful to have something than nothing. The policy against only red links is to discourage nonnotable cruft. Cursory googling shows the drones are more relevant now than the god, all the moreso in the event of a conflict in the East or South China Seas.

There's a reason that MOS:DAB has an entire section recapping WP:IAR... and combatting Wiki's lack of information about East Asia (WP:BIAS) is a primary reason for invoking it. WP:DABRED only applies to "articles that are unlikely ever to be written... or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics", neither of which is the case here for Qingdao's island or the drones. The only issue is a lack of English language sources and the PRC's blocking of Chinese editors from reaching Wikipedia at all. — LlywelynII 06:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as the articles are out there - even if they're short/stubs - the DAB's fine, but we do need the articles. Without a place to grow the information about the drone or island, the DAB doesn't help the reader. They'll only come across this page if they already know the name, so they're probably already aware that the topic exists. I honestly think you'd do better to write something about the drones and the island rather than pursue this DAB at this stage. Elemimele (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: Done. — LlywelynII 03:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Elemimele noted, disambiguation pages are for articles that actually exist, and "But they should exist" isn't a valid reason to keep the page. Cortador (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cortador: Actually, reread WP:DABRED. "They should exist" is a valid reason because the only rationale for the no-red-links-policy is concern over future notability. That said, the pages have been created now. It's better to change your vote since it's likely the valid dab page will now be deleted for similar procedural reasons to what got us here in the first place. — LlywelynII 03:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The disambiguation page now has two articles - Qianliyan and Qianliyan Island - with the latter having only two sources, one of them a news sources that barely escaped deprecation last time it was discussed, and one being a report that is not about the island and only mentioned it in passing a few times. You have not demonstrated notability. Cortador (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they have also created the stub Mount Qianliyan, whose notability is not warranted by reliable sources though. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cortador: The page is locked. When it's open again, the drones'll be shunted to the talk page pending article creation (everyone's very clear they prefer that vs. leaving them) and Mount Qianliyan (which is minor but notable regardless of the lack of English sourcing) will be added. If NmW... keeps up the silly opposition on the basis of article count, I'll just have to find sourcing to spin off the Qianliyan Conservation Area and Qianliyan Lighthouse. Those are currently (and appropriately for now) handled on the island talk page, but they also are notable and separate topics from the island itself. It's just better to handle them with the island at the moment because this shouldn't need to be such a needlessly WP:POINTY waste of everyone's time.
There are other notable Qianliyans; the dab page should exist to direct to them; and we should be able to move on with our lives. — LlywelynII 16:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cortador, I have cleaned up the dab and will withdraw the AfD nomination. I hope you are fine with that. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Qianliyan" is simply not ambiguous with any other subject with content on English Wikipedia, except perhaps the list entry at List of protected areas of China, which is why I inserted this hatnote [1], now deleted by LlywelynII. Delete the void disambiguation page and restore that hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep but @LlywelynII: needs to understand that this is not a satisfactory way to conduct business: it wastes editor's time. First write the articles, then write the disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shhhnotsoloud: All due respect but, seriously, take it up with the talk page on WP:DABRED. If there's a new consensus that all red links are always verboten, fine, the policy should actually say that instead of what it currently does: that red links should not be posted where the article is unlikely to be created or unlikely to survive a notability challenge. These were patently notable and it was a waste of everyone's time... to try to delete the dab page just to make people recreate it later for procedural reasons. This is why WP:IAR and WP:POINTY exist. (Again... fine if you think my understanding is wrong, but get your new consensus enshrined in the actual policy or other people—not me of course—will keep doing this.) — LlywelynII 16:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that the DAB should’ve been created only after at least two more blue-linked items were added besides the primary topic. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd have to vote to delete. Even aside from the question of the notability of the listed entries, concerns about bias, and the chaos that ensued after the PROD was removed, this disambiguation page should be deleted on the basis that DABs are created for one sole reason, and that is to disambiguate extant articles. This page is not helpful to the reader and is arguably costly, as DABs are not made to bring attention to red links. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gonna have to agree with Llywelyn on the part about mountains, though a DAB shouldn't exist if it solely consists of redlinks outside of the primary topic and one additional link, even if they are potentially notable, and I don't quite see how the drones are notable. We do have at least two valid links now besides the primary topic, though I would still prefer deleting the DAB and creating a hatnote for those two entries in its current state. I'll let other editors weigh in before forming a solid opinion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said it somewhere above, but—once the page is accessible again—I'll go ahead and add the mountain and remove the drones to the dab's talk page until articles are created. I may personally disagree but y'all were pretty clear about your consensus on that point. — LlywelynII 16:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I agree with the last sentence of NmWT's paragraph. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Mount Qianliyan could reasonably be disambiguated at Qianliyan (but not at Mount), just as North Carolina could be disambiguated at Carolina but not North. The overall idea is to help the reader. Elemimele (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that’s what I meant. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Peachy, but that's the opposite of what NmW... wrote. They were literally (and wrongly imo) stating that Mount Qianliyan shouldn't be mentioned on a dab page for Qianliyan. — LlywelynII 16:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the mountain should be at the disambiguation, and I believe that Qianliyan Waters National blah blah blah is not a different topic from the island as it stands. I don’t know why my original comment was so widely misinterpreted. I may change my vote to keep if it is shown that the drones and other things relating to the island have WP:POTENTIAL, but like I said I would prefer a hatnote if it is just the mountain and island. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm fairly certain that Qianliyan Island and Mount Qianliyan meet GEOLAND and so are valid items to list alongside the primary topic. I'd say they are valid targets when disambiguating "Qianliyan", and I do not agree that either item meet WP:PTM. I would prefer the disambiguation page versus strictly using hatnotes, so that additional topics may be added as time progresses. A consensus of Delete will add bureaucracy to the future and I'm inclined to believe articles using this may exist, given BIAS in this topic area. —Sirdog (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Qianliyan_(disambiguation)&oldid=1203303965"