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 delete.

Despite a few keep-!votes, consensus is clear that this disambig page is not only unnecessary but might potentially be problematic as well. A hatnote can serve the same purpose and if another Banco de Ponce article is created and the disambig page needed again, recreating it is not a problem. Regards SoWhy 12:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) (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)

Unnecessary disambiguation per WP:2DABS. Orphan. Primary topic links to other entry in a hatnote. This is a non-exceptional orphan 2DABS page (of which there are very many) but is at AfD as a test case. Such pages are often PRODed, and then deleted by admins citing WP:G6. user:Doncram (a long-standing and IMO a respected editor) has declined the PROD and put a "Do not delete" notice on the Talk page (as the user has done on other non-exceptional 2DABS pages). I PRODed the page because WP:2DABS says the page "may be deleted if, after a period of time no additional ambiguous topics are found to expand the disambiguation page". The PROD was independently seconded by user:Boleyn. Template:Only two dabs had been applied by user:Tavix in September 2016 so I judge it unlikely that there are other ambiguous topics (I have looked and found none). This page should be deleted under current guidance, and then either WP:2DABS guidance needs to be reinforced or changed: probably no-one wants AfD entries for declined PRODs for orphan 2DABs pages. (There was a lengthy, inconclusive, discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 46#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you for notifying me and for linking to the past proposal (which got archived rather than closed). The disambiguation page is an orphan, as most are; disambiguation pages should mostly not have inbound links (an exception being from "See also" of other dab pages). About this and other 2-item disambiguation pages, and where hatnotes between the two articles exist, in my opinion there need not be any link to the disambiguation page from the articles (perhaps that requires a change in bureaucratic policy, i am not sure). If/when sufficient more items get added to the disambiguation page (and here I have the impression in this case that there exist other Banco de Ponce branches which can be listed in the future possibly) so that hatnotes between the pages become unwieldy, only then does the disambiguation page get linked from any non-disambiguation mainspace article. There's no cost to readers; they pretty much cannot find their way to the disambiguation page. However it would be linked from "See also" at, say, "Banco de Pence (disambiguation)" if such existed, and the like. Keeping the disambiguation page hurts no one and has us further developed. Its Talk page and edit history keep the record of debates about whether certain items are partial matches or not, and about redlink topics and so on, and about AFDs about the disambiguation page. If the disambiguation page is deleted there is no gain, and some cost (on a good percentage of the cases) where the disambiguation page is recreated in the future. If this one happens to be a low traffic topic where few I.P. editors are coming and adding partial matches or redlinks or whatever, great, but the value of keeping the disambiguation page is higher the more churn there has been. Fight forgetting boring info about what disambiguation is needed, or possibly needed if only something else happens like a redlink being created in context in some article per requirement of wp:DABRL. Fight churn, which turns off prospective and experienced editors. Fight against fights to delete stuff for no purpose! --doncram 05:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per TWODABS. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Unnecessary disambiguation per WP:2DABS. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect, plausible search term for anyone who doesn't know how many notable entities there are called "Banco de Ponce". No need to create WP:Linkrot Siuenti (씨유엔티) 07:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• See also Banco_Crédito_y_Ahorro_Ponceño Siuenti (씨유엔티) 07:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per TWODABS. I strongly disagree with Doncram – we should not keep garbage around just because there might be some future use for it; either demonstrate now that there are other Bancos de Ponce worth disambiguating, or lose it. I can understand extreme inclusionism of encyclopedic material, but not keeping around useless utility pages like this one – there is a reader inconvenience and maintenance cost (lot of it has already been wasted on prods and this Afd). No such user (talk) 07:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The reader inconvenience and maintenance cost being what exactly? No-body forced anyone to prod or afd this article, it was sitting there being slightly useful quite happily. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 07:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per TWODABS. Any user typing Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) into the search box will necessarily, during that process, type in Banco de Ponce and thereupon will see that Banco de Ponce and Banco de Ponce (building) are both articles. Since there is nothing else to disambiguate, the disambiguation page doesn't serve any necessary purpose. WP:NOHARM is on its own hardly a compelling argument to keep or to delete a page. Cnilep (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No. That's just wrong, I just tried it. Anyway not everyone has Javascript enabled, and the search box is not the only navigation method in the world. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 09:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: not only unnecessary, but also potentially damaging. If another editor creates Banco de Ponce (Ambridge), they are likely to see the hatnote at Banco de Ponce and add their new article to that hatnote. The orphan dab page then becomes incomplete, and misleading to anyone who finds it. If, on the other hand, they find the dab page first, they will add their new article to it and not to the hatnote at the primary topic, which then becomes unhelpfully incomplete. Either way leads to problems for the reader. So a redundant dab page like this is a negative. Redirect it to the primary topic, or just delete. If a third (perhaps) or fourth (definitely) ambiguous topic appears, the dab page can easily be reconstructed and the hatnote on the primary topic amended accordingly. PamD 08:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would anyone create Banco de Ponce (Ambridge) ? is it a thing? should we be imagining it's a thing? And if you think "redirect to the primary topic" is acceptable why is your vote plain "delete"? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 09:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Siuenti: Banco de Ponce (Ambridge) is an imaginary new bank set up in the setting of the longest-running radio soap in the world. Take it to mean "Any third ambiguous title". And I really have no strong view whether delete or redirect would be better, as long as we don't have a duplicated set of disambiguation links in hatnote and dab page. PamD 12:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So like Banco de Ponce (Milla de Oro) or Banco de Ponce (San Juan)? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 14:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's interesting that these pages are apparently being deleted under "WP:G6" (uncontroversial maintenance) when "there was a lengthy, inconclusive, discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 46#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages)" which doesn't make it look terribly uncontroversial. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 09:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is your typical WP:TWODABS situation. It's easily solved with a hatnote which makes the disambiguation page unnecessary. No need to make this a big deal. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tavix: It may be unnecessary but it's still valuable if you don't know how many notable Xs there are - you might expect that the hatnote is going to take you to the disambiguation page anyway and want to skip that step. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 14:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Siuenti: please stop badgering every !voter. I obviously disagree, hence my !vote. It's counter-productive to hatnote to a disambiguation page when there's only one other topic. The hatnote can bypass the dab and lead directly to the other topic, saving a step. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, it's a !vote, so the fact that you disagree is not important, your reasoning is. I didn't say hatnote to a disambiguation page (assuming no other entries are added), I said either redirect the disambiguation page to the other page or leave it as it is. Either of these things save a step for someone who searches for the dab page. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving it as is would violate WP:TWODABS. Is there a closely related disambiguation page this can be redirected to? -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TWODABS. A disambiguation page is merely a navigational device. Where that function can be performed by a hatnote, a disambiguation page is superfluous. I would note, however, that this is not necessarily a reason to hunt down and delete every existing two-link disambiguation page with one link being a clear primary topic, as those resources are probably better applied elsewhere. Since this page happens to have been nominated, it should be deleted, and pages like this should generally not be created. bd2412 T 12:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  @BD2412: What is your objection to redirecting? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 14:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirecting to what? A "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect should only point to an actual disambiguation page, or else its existence becomes a source of confusion in itself. bd2412 T 01:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with doncram on this. Keeping the page is harmless and may have some benefit. WP:TWODABS specifically says that in this case, "then a disambiguation page is not needed" (that doesn't mean it's not allowed). MB 13:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TWODABS. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment user:Siuenti (asked above to "stop badgering") has just made an edit which, in my opinion, is not only unnecessary in the context of the dab page (the first entry is a link to the existing primary topic; the second is an optional See also), but actively unhelpful to this AfD being of an exemplar 2DABS page. I am not going to revert it because that might not be correct conduct as nominator of this AfD but future commenters should be aware of the version of the page under discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm sure they were goof daith additions and it is important we look for additional entries. However, I felt both were invalid and have removed them, as neither of them are called, or commonly known as, Banco de Ponce. Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've seen dabs like this kept, other entries added over time, and no one knows, because the primary topic doesn't link there. If there was no page, then the person who added them to the dab would have seen that, and made it a double hatnote or created a dab. Retaining this could cause possible confusion and if more emerge in the future (unlikely), it would take seconds to re-create a dab. Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per doncram. The real problem is the validity and blind acceptance of TWODABS as a rationale for change. Loopy30 (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I guess. Neither topic is very popular. The bank gets 7 hits a day, the building 3. They're actually pretty close as you can see here. And some of the hits on the bank may be be people looking for the building. Even so, I suppose the bank is the primary topic, I guess. That being so, hatnotes will do the trick. The dab page would have no incoming links and thus no purpose and is is just cruft, and somebody wants to clean it up, let them. No prejudice against recreation if a third meaning for Banco de Ponce is found. Herostratus (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A dab page in this instance serves no purpose. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2017 (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.