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. JohnCD ( talk) 17:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Severna Park (disambiguation)

Severna Park (disambiguation) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

There are two topics here that are exactly "Severna Park" - the CDP and the writer, with the CDP being the primary topic, so this is a WP:TWODABS. I tagged it for deletion, but then two WP:PTMs were added that are not independent of the CDP and could easily be/are mentioned in its article. This still has no weight at all as a useful DAB page, as two of its entries aren't valid, and a hatnote works for the writer. Nohomersryan ( talk) 00:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Move Severna Park, Maryland to Severna Park as an obvious primary topic [1], keep the hatnote to Severna Park (writer) and then delete Severna Park (disambiguation) as the two other entries are partial title matches that are unlikely to be called just "Severna Park". Nohomersryan, all this could have probably been easier to deal with by requesting a move at WP:RMT and then prodding the dab page. Uanfala ( talk) 09:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Per WP:USPLACE, the Maryland place will still have to be at Severna Park, Maryland. (This doesn't affect the fact that it's still a WP:TWODABS, since Severna Park will exist as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to the CDP, and the writer can just have a hatnote there.) Nohomersryan ( talk) 22:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • O, I see. I agree then. Striking through the bit about the move Uanfala ( talk) 07:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete the dab and leave the CDP at the primary title, with a single hatnote to the writer, per nominator. — swpb ^T 17:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep: There are multiple articles which include "Severna Park" and schools in particular are often referred to by just the name. These are logical search parameters, particularly by children. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Deletion of disambiguation pages based on wp:TWODABS NEVER makes sense. If neither item is primary, the dab is needed. If one of two is primary, as here, the dab page is not absolutely required, but if it is created, it should be kept, in part to avoid wasting editors' attention in AFDs. Disambiguation pages are like redirects: cheap. Another exact match may turn up (there , and can be added. And, as here, it can hold other plausible items that are not exact matches, in the list or in "See also". Readers don't necessarily know their target is not an exact match; partial matches are helpful. Deletion nominations based on TWODABS should be closed "Speedy Keep". -- do ncr am 15:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep per doncram. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above. No reason to delete. Smartyllama ( talk) 19:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Montanabw. I disagree with Doncram's argument that Deletion of disambiguation pages based on wp:TWODABS NEVER makes sense, because disambiguation pages may be deleted if the name is only associated with two topics with one being the WP:PTOPIC. SST flyer 15:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC) reply

• Right you are if you mean what wp:TWODABS says. What I meant is that TWODABS should be changed. The proposal to do that is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages. Glad we agree here, anyhow. -- do ncr am 22:14, 23 September 2016 (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.