Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mankri

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. I'm not following all the details of how things developed during the three weeks this was running, but it looks like the pre-existing redlink problems have been resolved. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mankri (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)

The first and third entries should be deleted per MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. The creator asserts that there is some controversy over whether the second entry is called 'Mankri'; this is the only valid redirect target. I have tried redirecting it and moving it to be worked on in draftspace, but the creator repeatedly puts it back this way because they don't agree with MOS:DABMENTION. Agree or disagree, those are the guidelines, and leading readers to non-existent redlinks and blue links where they are not mentioned nor would it make sense for them to be mentioned, is not helpful. Disambiguation pages are indexes of information in Wikipedia articles - not a search engine like Google. Boleyn (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, I – the creator – don't disagree with DABMENTION, or any other style guideline. What I object to is for it to be narrowly interpreted and applied without the appreciation of nuance. – Uanfala (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless reliably sourced information is added to the pages for the respective entries demonstrating that they are, in fact, known as some variation of "Mankri". I trust that if such information is added, this AfD can be withdrawn. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - WP:Deletion is not cleanup; please AfD/PROD/CSD the individual articles first. If all entries are deleted, then this would be a valid deletion. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to delete vote due to the fact the disambig. actually has only 1 article relating to it. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The third entry on this page came out of this RfD discussion (see there for sources), the second entry is apparently an alternative name of the article linked (and that article had been at this title for eight years until yesterday), and the first entry is a redlink on an inherently notable topic (source). – Uanfala (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are sources supporting inclusion of the term in an article, add it to that article with those sources. If there are not, delete it from the disambiguation page. bd2412 T 21:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Can't see the problem with it. All three entries are valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Necrothesp, I think it might be better if you vote keep rather than oppose as that vote is a bit unclear. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, of course. Bit of a brainfart there! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The entries are backed by sources and are pretty much self-contained. If any editors take issue with the fact that two of the articles linked from this page don't presently mention the disambiguated term (and hence these entries fall short of the WP:DABMENTION style guideline), then the solution is to use the sources provided and add the missing mentions in any way they feel would benefit the encyclopedia. – Uanfala (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure about that> I am having trouble finding sources of any quality for these propositions. bd2412 T 13:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apart from Makri, Bulandshahr (whose source, in the article, might not count as reliable), quality sources have been provided for the other two entries – see my comment further up the page. Are there any issues with these sources? – Uanfala (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have added the information for the first link. However, so far I see a WP:TWODABS situation. What sources support the use of this term for Burmese monarchs? bd2412 T 16:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • See Coffee's comment in the RfD I linked above, one of the sources there was this (pp. 79, 82). I'd advise against including any of these mentions to the target article, unless sufficient context is added about the titles as a whole. – Uanfala (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I do not see why a better source is needed to verify Mankir in Uttar Pradesh. GNS approved the name as recently as 2015-08-20. The one in Rajasthan is well supported here. Is someone disputing the Burmese title? And yes I agree that a dab bluelink should mention the item and provide a citation to a source, but that can be remedied. See also Makri Population - Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh from the India 2011 Census. --Bejnar (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2018 (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.