Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prodan (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. asilvering (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prodan (disambiguation)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:TWODABS applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That did indeed apply before my edit just now - there's also a village, but we previously had the link to that removed without anyone doing basic WP:BEFORE. Now that there's a red link with a blue link, standard for listing human settlements that have WP:POTENTIAL, so it's again fine with the guidelines. (Keep) --Joy (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I see the Prodan (dye) page is already set up with a hatnote and a didyoumean header, could we just add the same to the village per WP:ONEOTHER? Or is it better to maintain the disambiguation page in case another Prodan appears in the future? InsomniaOpossum (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@InsomniaOpossum that is possible, but it would add a red link to a hatnote, and we have a guideline against that, WP:REDHAT. --Joy (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and slap a hatnote on Prodan. WP:POTENTIAL is an essay and WP:TWODABS is a P&G. Recreate if the other page was created., Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, talk about a bureaucratic approach - but this is not a bureaucracy. And this argument is even incongruent with the existing set of guidelines - Wikipedia:Red link is also a guideline (as is MOS:DABRL). --Joy (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per Joy. There are three blue links on the page, and the village is noteworthy for mention in another article. BD2412 T 17:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now there are three entries. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2025 (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.