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. Tone 17:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ade (surname) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Superfluous and not notable. King Sunny Ade and George Ade already have their own articles. Wahrmund (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This seems to work as a useful disambiguation page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Ade has already been disambiguated at ADE (disambiguation). There is no need for a separate article about Ade as a surname. Wahrmund (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wahrmund. Could add Ade (disambiguation) as a redirection. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Most of the other surnames shared by multiple people have DAB pages, why cant this one? – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as it contains information (and a reference) that would not be relevant on a disambiguation page. Peter E. James (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe we should just make this page into a DAB page. The reference is useless -- Ade was American, not British. Wahrmund (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - interesting point but it is not, IMHO, useless. Many surnames carried by Americans are, in fact, of British origin which is what the ref says. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If that is intended to be a useful reference, then why doesn't it refer to someone who was actually British? Wahrmund (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Having checked the source through I agree that it is not a useful reference. The fact that he is American would not be pertinent if the source stated, for example, that the family name Ade was of British origin but, now so far as I can see, it doesn't. Bridgeplayer (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a disambiguation page is no barrier to a page on the surname. The advantage of surname page is that it can be developed to cover the etymology and usages. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Standard disambiguation page - should never have been proposed. Arjayay (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is useful to have a disambiguation page for just the names, as Bridgeplayer and others note. That said, Ade (disambiguation) should probably redirect somewhere as well. But that's a side issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:30, 1 November 2011 (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.