Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vernate

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vernate (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)

I don't see the point in a disambiguation page containing two links only. It seems easy enough to make the two articles link to each other in the top. If it's a problem of figuring out where the name Vernate should point to, I think the place with the higher population (which happens to be Vernate, Lombardy) should be pointed to. RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Disambiguations, Italy, and Switzerland. RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Pageviews does not indicate either gets many more views than the other, therefore there is no WP:Primary Topic making Vernate ambiguous. MB 17:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this disambig page meets or guidelines for WP:D. MB has a valid point regrading WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which leads us to WP:2DABS. Lightburst (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This needs to go to RM not AFD otherwise the DAB is valid. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep as is. I do not see a primary topic between these terms. BD2412 T 22:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this logic is very unintuitive to me - just because there are only two currently identified different topics with the same name, that doesn't mean that the encyclopedia needs to pick and choose where to short-circuit navigation to. Please review WP:D once again? Note also that WikiNav shows no data here so it's likely very low traffic, so there's no indication of primary topic. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, the two articles are pretty obscure, and the dab receives barely one view each week. – Uanfala (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The place in Ticino gets more views than the place in Lombardy (406 vs. 243 for last year), but the difference isn't big enough to suggest a primary topic (and pageviews are only a very weakly indication of a primary topic status anyway). In such a case, WP:2DAB mandates a dab page at the base title. – Uanfala (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:D, I don't think this meets WP:ONEOTHER: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed. I also disagree with I think the place with the higher population (which happens to be Vernate, Lombardy) should be pointed to- in the last 90 days Ticino and Lombardy got 81 and 70 views (in the last 20 days it is 20 to 25, a minimal difference), so this statement seems to be inaccurate. VickKiang (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Two small communes. Neither more notable than the other. We have a disambiguation page. That's how Wikipedia works. Pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT from a new editor who would probably be well-advised to read up on Wikipedia procedures before making any more WP:GOODFAITH nominations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2022 (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.