Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kotelniki (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 was keep. There's enough to disambiguate, and the station article is surely coming. Frankly, the nominator did not express a cogent rationale for deletion. Seem like a pretty unnecessary AfD. -- Y not? 14:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kotelniki (disambiguation) (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)
Disambiguation page which points to 4 articles only one of which is an actual article. Seems unnecessary. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G6 as unnecessary disambiguation page. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree: Special:WhatLinksHere/Kotelniki_(Moscow_Metro). --TarzanASG (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case a hatnote can be placed on top of the Kotelniki article if/when an article on the Moscow Metro station is created. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. WP:DABRL in its current form is one of the most brain-dead guidelines Wikipedia has, and there seems to be no sane way around it apart from creating an article. With that in mind, I've created a substub on the village in Perm Krai so the technical requirements are now met; it sure beats placing hatnotes now only to remove them later when the village entry qualifies anyway. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 22, 2013; 18:15 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2013 (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.