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.
Comment - This article was recently split from Obambo -- a fact that should have been noted in the article history. Additionally, the two articles should link to each other.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is essentially a WP:DICTDEF, which is a problem. Obambo seems to be one of several names used in East Africa for dried fish. The information in this article should be retained, but not necessarily under this title. This presentation on an FAO website uses "Obambo" as one of several terms referring to drying of fish in East Africa. Here's a recipe for Obambo on a website for Kenyan women: [1]. That recipe lists two alternative names for this type of fish. I can imagine an article on fish drying and use of dried fish in East Africa, or perhaps this belongs in a broader article on the drying of fish in general. --Orlady (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I recently created the article. The information was tacked on to the end of the article Obambo, which is a type of ghost in central Africa. The two words appear to be homonyms. In meaning, they have nothing to do with each other, so I thought it would be best to put the fish information on its own page. I know almost nothing of African culture, ghosts, or fish. If the article is deleted, I have very little invested in it. I'm not sure why the information would be moved to another title, or what title that would be, or what benefit it would have. If another editor can improve the articles, I think they should remain separate. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry -- I should have explained myself better. There are two concerns about the relationship between this article and Obambo:
1. To provide an auditable trail in relation to copyright law, when we take content from one Wikipedia article and insert it into another article, the edit summary for the new article is supposed to indicate where the content came from. The "dried fish" content was added to Obambo on 30 September 2011; it was not new when you added it to this article.
2. Wikipedia commonly encounters terms and names that have multiple meanings. WP:Disambiguation tells about how we handle those situations -- particularly to help users find the other meanings of a term, other people with the same names, etc. In this case, it's important to use some sort of link, such as a "See also" section or a hatnote, to help users who encounter one Obambo article to find the other article. --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge to Dried fish, there is already a list there where it will fit right in. The type of dried fish described is prepared all over the world. There does not seem to be anything special about the Lake Victoria version. There should also not be an article on the word, by "not a dictionary." (Nor does info on the word belong in the other article, which seems to me to be about a notable topic. Info on the word could go in Dried fish, but is not really needed there either.) Borock (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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.