Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azzam


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Azzam

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This was a redirect page. The problem is that there are many Azzams, and its original target is probably not even the most popular one. A disambiguation page might be a good idea, but I think that no page at all is a better idea. Jsolinsky (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not sure why the nom thinks a disambiguation page is not as good an idea as deletion. We have several people called Azzam, hence a disambiguation page is worth having. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  22:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it is a common name. We would have to reference a great many Wikipedia articles (and maintain this list as new Azzams get pages). Also because if we have an Azzam page, people who enter Azzam in the search bar and hit return go to the Azzam page, and do not get a list of search results. I think that the list of search results will much more often be the preferred outcome. Jsolinsky (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to !vote either way at the moment, just to note that I have converted it into a disambiguation page to save it from speedy deletion. Blanking the redirect and bringing here blank wasn't the best idea, in my opinion, you should have taken it to WP:RfD as a redirect, but its here now, so we might as well discuss it here. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  23:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as disambiguation page. If it causes problems later through overloading, it can be dealt with again then. Peridon (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Peridon. I have populated the disambiguation page, there may be some more entries I haven't found yet, but even so, it is quite modest in numbers, so I don't think overloading is or will be a problem in the near future. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK since somebody has stepped forward to maintain the page, I withdraw my request Jsolinsky (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.