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 delete with no bias against recreation of a disambig should one be necessary. Opabinia regalis 00:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sumit[edit]

Sumit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not give any useful information. Seems like someone created this out of vanity. Truetyper 02:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's fourth edit.

• Weak delete. I don't think you could make a bigger article here. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikify Transwiki - Google hits verify that it is a given first name in Africa; so this is a definition that belongs in Wikidictionary. For precedent, see listing for Dan. B.Wind 04:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's called Transwikification. Wikification is adjustment for Manual of Style concerns. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sit corrected. That's what I get for editing with a divided mind. Thanks. B.Wind 04:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Nashville Monkey 12:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can it be cleaned up to look like Amit? Gzkn 12:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, if there were famous, notable, important people with the surname of Sumit, it would probably work. Nashville Monkey 12:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Indian name vanity (there's a lot of it around). Recreate in a useful state later if that is possible. Punkmorten 14:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I am not automatically opposed to name articles, but this one is too insignificant. Perhaps move it to Wiktionary? TSO1D 15:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:COI. Terence Ong 15:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reason given in the nomination. ArmAndLeg 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It used to be consensus that articles about given names were vanity articles and to be deleted as such. In fact, my deletion log shows:

16:12, 4 September 2005 SWAdair (Talk | contribs) deleted "Stacey" (content was: '((db|No conceivable hope of becoming an article.))A female name, sometimes used as a male name. sometimes also used as a surname. never in recorded ...')

Now not only do we have all sorts of given-name articles, but look at the current state of Stacey, which was deleted because it had "No conceivable hope of becoming an article" -- basically the reason proposed for deletion of this article. Using Google to search Wikipedia only, I found Sumit Sarkar and plenty of Wikipedia articles that mention other notable people named Sumit, although they don't have articles written about them yet. sumit site:en.wikipedia.org This article is as valid as Stacey, Adam (name), Brian and a host of other given-name articles. Give it time and it will grow. SWAdair 03:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SWAdair. — coelacan talk — 05:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN. And we're not a baby-name directory. WMMartin 16:24, 8 December 2006 (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.