Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bug river

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. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 02:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bug river[edit]

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

Disambiguation page is not needed for only two items. Hat note is at the top of both pages already. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is intertwined with a discussion on Western Bug vs Bug River page movement at the talk page - see there for details. If a user searches on Bug they will get redirected to the Bug (disambiguation) page which has a Geography section pointing them to either river-related article. In addition there are hatnotes on both river pages in keeping with WP policy on hatnotes vs. disambiguation pages.

My point is that there doesn't need to be a separate disambiguation page just for two entries. I'm just asking that this page NOT be a disambiguation page, but just a redirect page. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reality the names of the rivers in question are Bug River and Southern Buh River, so the disambiguation itself is questionable. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep I'm confused. What exactly is the rationale for deletion? What criteria does it fail or fail to meet? I don't see the page as a problem, as a logical way to differentiate these two (and possibly others in the future that aren't listed yet), but before I !vote, just wanted to hear an actual criteria for the nomination to begin with. "Not needed" sounds like very much like WP:USELESS or at least WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which are not only invalid arguments in an AFD, but invalid reasons to nominate an article for deletion to begin with. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No need for this, it is a knee-jerk reaction to me catching those hundreds of AWB edits the user made, creating hundreds of redirects, and this is an attempt to rectify the mistake rather than undoing all of their work.
Keep - I don't completely understand the nomination. Would the nominator prefer that when a reader types "Bug river" into the search box, they are taken to a page of search results rather than this disambiguation page? From the disambiguation guidelines, "if an ambiguous term is considered to have no primary topic, then that term should lead to a disambiguation page". Is there a primary topic here? If so, it should be at Bug river, with a hatnote pointing to the other article. But if there is no primary topic, this is surely the most helpful way of navigating the two articles.--Beloved Freak 20:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the hatnotes are there, but what's the likelihood that someone looking for Western Bug is going to type in Southern Bug and get to the right place via a hatnote? Isn't it logical that they might look for "Bug river"? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even though this nomination sound like WP:IDONTLIKE or WP:USELESS as mentioned above I think this article does not meet the context it is supposed to give as the other Bug river is NOT known as Bug River, so lemme explain carefully, there are two rivers one named Pivdennyi Buh and the other named Zakhidnyy Buh, respectively Western Bug or Bug River and the other solely known as Southern Buh, the terminology is different from one to the other because one river passes many countries while the other is located within one and only country. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bug disambiguation page. 65.93.12.8 (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two viable topics, neither primary. It probably should be moved to Bug River for caps, but that's not necessary for this discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Bug River. Shannon ^talk _contribs 03:31, 4 May 2011 (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.