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 and discuss disambiguation status on talk page of article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zubin[edit]

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

An interesting article created by Zubinhaghi - his only contribution - but not an encyclopaedia piece. Would be well-suited to a Dictionary of Names, which is where I would expect to find it. Emeraude 19:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig Given the multiple uses of the word, it would make a good disambig page (needs some linking work). SkierRMH,08:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep , expand and add a disambiguation page. I dissagree with the nom as the subject, a common south Asian name, is very encyclpedic. Many names have articles that discuss the orgin, history, background and current usage, such as well known English names like John (name), Elizabeth and William (name). There's no reason to exclude an article on a foreign name for systemic bias reasons or otherwise. --Oakshade 23:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias? That's a nasty accusation if I understand the article correctly. Please read my nomination again. My point is that this article is better suited to a Dictionary of Names like the one I have on my bookshelf. Same applies to John, Elizabeth and William. (Elizabeth especially, which has fallen into the obvious trap of becoming a list.) Emeraude

I'll remove the systemic bias speculation as you seem to have issues with all articles about names in general (but I am still troubled that you singled this name, which happens to be non-English, out for deletion). On that point, I guess I have a fundamental disagreement. I find the origins, histories and uses of names very encyclopedic and beyond the scope of definitions in dictionaries. --Oakshade 00:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I didn't, as you say, single out this name (it came up as a random page) because it is non-English. Incidentally, you might notice that my user name is French. I find the origins of names interesting as well, but I still say they belong in a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia, apart from possibly some very important examples that I can't think of. Same goes for surnames. Emeraude 12:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To repeat the point I made earlier today in another AfD debate: Wikipedia is not a sourcelist of baby names. Not encyclopedic. Delete. WMMartin 18:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an insult to the editors of the articles on names. These aren't lists of "baby names." --Oakshade 20:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as disam When a name has other means than a name for a person, then there is justification for keeping it as a disam page, like here. DGG 02:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and wikify as useful encyclopedic information. I'm not convinced that it needs to be a dab page at this point, as there is no real redirection to other articles (except Zubin Mehta).--Kubigula (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kubigula. JamesMLane t c 10:05, 15 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.