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 Moot since the factual record has changed underneath the AFD. This closure expresses no opinion on the relative merits of the original contention and its disputants. deranged bulbasaur 09:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tada Station (disambiguation)[edit]

Tada Station (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A disambiguation page is by definition a page that provides readers with possible resolutions of an ambiguous search term. If none of the articles referenced in a "disambiguation page" exist, then it fails to comport with the definition of a disambiguation page since no resolution of the search term is possible. If it is not such a page, and it is in article namespace, then it must be an article. This article fails to assert notability and has no sources to establish verifiability. deranged bulbasaur 07:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep But having this page hurts no one, no? What is that we want to achieve by deleting this page? (Deletion doesn't save a disk space, by the way.) On principle, articles that don't belong to Wikipedia have to be deleted. This disambig page does belong to Wikipedia because eventually we are going to have those articles on stations linked in this page. Also, notability or verifiability is really applicable here because this is a disambig page. Disambig pages, by their nature, don't need to be sourced or to be on notable topics. -- Taku (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:HARMLESS. Also, for the foregoing logically derived reasons in the nomination, this article is not a disambiguation page. If you contend that it is a disambiguation page, please justify how a page that does not disambiguate can be a disambiguation page. deranged bulbasaur 15:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What a pointless exercise. I agree with the editor that wrote: "There are going to be the articles of this name. So, it is pointless to delete this page." in the edit summary when he removed the earlier PROD tag added by User:Deranged bulbasaur. Maybe User:Deranged bulbasaur would now like to close this AfD himself. --DAJF (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decline. deranged bulbasaur 15:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I strongly agree with DAJF's pointless exercise comment. In this case, the legwork done by the article's creator would also save duplicitous effort in the future: If someone were to create the Tada Station article that is already linked from Tada Jinja, the name would violate the Japan trains wikiproject naming convention, and be moved to Tada Station (Hyogo) anyway. Having the DAB pages in place keep that from happening, as well as eventually fulfilling their real job of disambiguation (as Takuya wrote) as the project works towards making the article set more complete. Neier (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you mean duplicative, not duplicitous. deranged bulbasaur 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm still trying to reconcile the claim that "none of the articles exist" with the fact that one of them does, and did at the time of nomination. Ah, well. In any case, both stations can easily be verified as existing, and since train stations are both de facto and de jure wikinotable, it can be readily assumed (without resorting to original research) that eventually the other will be created, at which point a disambiguation page will be needed. Nominator is right that by the letter of policy, a dab-page for only one extant article should not exist. The question at hand is whether to insist on deleting now and recreate the page come the needed day, or decide such wikilawyering is more tendentious than useful. Personally, I hold the latter: keep as the dab-page it's intended to be. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check again. The article was created since the nomination. I went ahead and struck your manifestly false claim, since falsehoods contribute nothing to the discussion, especially those that impugn the actions of other editors. deranged bulbasaur 18:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gah. You're right. I misread the time-stamps. My apologies. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Especially now that there's at least one of the two articles created. I think the authors in question deserve some leeway. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: now that at least one of the articles exists, I see absolutely no reason to delete. Scog (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - this is a disambiguation page. The fact that one of the articles does not YET exist is no reason for deletion. Its existecne may even encourage some one to write the missing article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Interestingly enough, the fact that there are no articles by that name or only one article by that name is more of a reason for having a dab page versus where there are two articles by the same name. If there are two articles by the same name, all that is needed is a hatnote on each page pointing to the other page, thus making a two-entry dab page extraneous. However, when there is only one article, it would be inappropiate to have a redlinked-hatnote, thus giving a basis for a dab page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since it now clearly disambiguates. Nomination appears to have lost validity. The desired effect has perhaps been achieved, or at least halfway so. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2008 (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.