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 as improved. bd2412T 02:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an invalid disambiguation page. The Battle of Bernetz Brook is a WP:PTM as there is no evidence of the battle being known simply as "Bernetz" (the short name would be "Bernetz Brook"). Christian Berentz is close to being a valid entry, but his surname is "Berentz", not "Bernetz". There are also some other entries that all fail WP:DABMENTION as there is no Wikipedia content to link to. With no valid entries, this should be deleted. --Tavix(talk) 21:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments in the previous AfD. In a nutshell: dab page is at present non-standard but useful, and it will stop being non-standard the moment any Bernetz content is added to any of the four linked Quebec articles, and we wouldn't want to have to recreate the dab page from scratch when this happens. – Uanfala 21:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DABMENTION: If the topic is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic. It's not "useful" for readers to be given a bunch of dead-ends. --Tavix(talk) 21:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[S]ince linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic. I was trying to argue that in this case it will. – Uanfala 22:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sending our readers to articles that don't mention the term does not help them find information about the sought topic. It does the opposite, to be frank. --Tavix(talk) 22:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've created Bernetz River with abridged content from the French article. Really, adding enough content to justify the existence of the dab page takes on average less time than than trying to have that page deleted. – Uanfala 22:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We've got enough unsourced content to deal with, please don't be part of that problem. Do you have some sources to support these claims? --Tavix(talk) 22:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that among WP DAB regulars who have edited the dab page so far, about half have been very diligent at removing entries that aren't currently mentioned in the linked articles. I understand why we would want to do that, and I'm sure we are ready to restore the removed entry as soon as a mention has been added to its article. The trouble is, we aren't likely to be there when this happens (I don't even think the relevant article are on the watchlists of anyone of us even now). Of course, the future editor who adds this content may restore the dab pointer, but most probably they wouldn't. Thus in most cases, we end up making information more difficult to find in the long run. – Uanfala 00:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DABMENTION should be applied if there's no mention at the present. Why are you assuming content will be added in the future? Do you have a crystal ball? --Tavix(talk) 00:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DABMENTION applies regardless of this discussion. It is highly misleading to participants to make it appear as if the disambiguation page has more entries than would normally be acceptable. If anyone wants to supply to necessary references, they are more than welcome. older ≠ wiser 01:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Found Bernetz (township) while stub-sorting, checked to see if it was linked from Berentz (my standard practice for stubs with bracketed disambiguation), added it to the dab page. PamD 08:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, that should read "checked to see if it was linked from Bernetz"! PamD 11:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have also found evidence of the painter being called Christian Bernetz so have added that with source to Christian Berentz article; his entry in the dab page is thus justified. PamD 08:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD. Plenty of people are likely to misspell Bernetz as Berentz (and vice versa). —GrammarFascistcontribstalk 01:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 18:50, 20 August 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.