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 speedy keep. No valid grounds for deletion asserted, especially as the article stands now. The nominator has pretty much conceded below that the article is going to be kept, and given the tone of the discussion, continuing it is not going to do anyone any good. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammadabad, Iran[edit]

Mohammadabad, Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article without usable information. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is useful as a disambiguation page and the fact that there are over 300 places in Iran named Mohammadabad is interesting and useful. I added a link to one of the towns that already had a stub article. I don't see any reason to delete it. HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mohammadabad, Esfahan Province. While towns and such are inherently notable, there's no use in having a disambiguation page that doesn't go to any articles - that's a linkfarm. The dab page can be restored (though not in its current linkfarm form) if pages on the other places are created. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, redirecting to one will make it harder for not regular users to create the others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nom. has not provided any rationale for deletion; smells like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, my friend. At the time of nomination the rationale was WP:NOBODYCANUSETHIS. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Now a valid disambiguation page. Even if the external links were all removed, there are now about 20 articles linked from here. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was this not done earlier? It isn't a recent article. But let me say this: at 31 article (10% of the former 307 geolinks) I will withdraw my nomination because then I will regard it a useful article. I hope that someone takes up the challenge! Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Your extortion is absurd; any disambiguation page is valid with 2 articles. How about this: if the article is kept, you are deemed to have your final warning against disruptive AFD nominations: the next one gets a permablock. Enjoy that challenge! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal violence, here or on my talkpage, will not help you, my friend. And I am talking about a challenge, it is not "extortion" as you want to call it. It give me the idea that you just want to protect your own work without valid arguments. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided no valid arguments for deletion. You apparently are not here to build an encyclopedia but to disrupt it. I'll let the closing administrator evaluate all the arguments and see whether your nomination is as boneheaded as it seems. Will you next nominate Smith for deletion until articles on 10% of all notable Smiths are created? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with Wikipedia:No personal attacks? I don't think so if I see this senseless rant. You can shout and roar and threath me with blocks, but I only listen to serious arguments. It is unlikely now that a closing admin will remove the article, now it is improved big time. I only ask for a bit more and then I offer to put in a speedy close as keep. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of that; and the "verbal violence" comment you made is afoul of it. I have called your argument boneheaded; whether you're a bonehead or not I have not addressed as that would violate the NPA. Your nomination was wrong from the get go and unless you learn from your errors, you will likely repeat them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.