Speedy Keep There is nothing subjective about a dab named City of Peace that links to articles about cities historically dubbed City of Peace, with citations to back that up. Words related to the meaning "subjective" are becoming more commonly misused in deletion nominations. Making a nomination without some factual evidence or policy on which to base the assertion that the article is faulty has, sadly, been the norm for years, even though it is prohibited by WP:BEFORE and its requirement of checking WP:DEL#REASON (well, all of DEL, really). Anarchangel (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, only two of the six entries on the list link to articles containing citations for the use of the label "City of Peace". I seem to be saying this more and more, but would it be too much to ask to assume a little good faith and discuss the matter at hand rather than attacking the nomination/supposed motives of the nominator? Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate 01:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Sentence one: Yes, two of the six have citations, but three of the articles have the phrase city of peace mentioned as their names. As for the other three of the six, I am sure a source can be found to verify this, the first sentence of the Eirene (redirect to Irene) article: "Irene is a name derived from the Greek word εἰρήνη (eirēnē) meaning 'peace'" The three in question are: Eirinoupoli, a city in Greece. Irenopolis, Cilicia. Irenopolis, Isauria. I am sure you can see the correlation.
Keep as three of the target articles do mention "city of peace". I have removed the other three, which are cities whose names may well be translations of "city of peace" but do not justify a dab page entry. We don't include Dublin under Black Pool or Blackpool (disambiguation) just because that's the English translation of its name. PamD 20:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
We have not, so far. It is not necessary. But it would be useful. I will be the first to point out that Useful is not an accepted argument for inclusion. But I disagree with that rule; usefulness is in short supply here at WP, which is little more than a quicker way into the same collection of links that one could find on Google. I restored the three, per my argument above, before I read your argument about translation. Not really convinced I should change it back, though, after reading it. I probably would not anyway, because it is preferable to leave articles unchanged during an AfD, so everyone's votes and rationales retain their meaning. If it can be fixed with editing, it should not be here at AfD, it should be at WP:RFC. Anarchangel (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)