Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red-billed

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 no consensus. We do not have consensus that the guideline should be applied in this instance. Sandstein 09:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red-billed

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

Another dab page with no valid entries and no obvious redirect. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is useful and perfectly acceptable. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no valid entries? Ridernyc (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:DAB#Partial title matches comes under "What not to include". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DAB#Partial title matches. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I think this is useful, and personally find it acceptable for an encyclopedia, but we have to stick to policy. Per Alan Liefting, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 11:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments regarding the above. First, I am not convinced that WP:DAB#Partial title matches does apply. The examples given are rather different. Many of the entries could just be called "a red-billed" if the context was clear. Someone who missed the context could look it up on WP and this page would be useful. Second, that page is not policy; it is a guideline. If it is useful and encyclopedic, them ignore all rules and that is policy. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These types of disambiguation pages have already been discussed here and here. The result of both discussions was keep. Neelix (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for finding articles, and that's all that a dab page is expected to be. Guidelines by their nature allow for exceptions when it help[s the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful to aviod confusion among bird watchers. No one else will be bothered by the page. Borock (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page does what a search on "red billed" would give only a search would be more up to date. This page would have to be maintained in order to keep it up to date and there is no guarantee of that. With this page in existence a search for the term will bring it up as the search result. All the other terms that the reader may be looking for and are not on this page will not be presented. WP is here to serve the readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Such an argument could be made about many different types of disambiguation pages. Using the bare search simply results in a haphazard list of articles spread, in this case, across two long pages of results. Instead, this disambiguation page presents all the entries succinctly and alphabetically on one page without any required scrolling. Bare search results are not preferable to organized disambiguation pages. The main point is that these birds are all referred to simply as "red-billed" by birders in certain circumstances, so this page page should exist to disambiguate. Neelix (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2009 (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.