Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliburn (surname)


 * 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. The consensus for Cliburn is to keep; there is little mention about Simister, so that is defaulting to keep - please renominate seperately if you feel it should be considered for deletion --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 02:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cliburn (surname)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am also nominating the following related page for the reason stated below:

Per MOS:DABNAME:

These two very short surname pages were created within the last 24 hours by the same editor and I believe are completely unnecessary. I would have nominated them for speedy delete except that the editor who created them is an administrator which probably makes nominating their deletion automatically controversial.

In both cases here, we have very short surname lists: three names at Cliburn (surname) and two names at Simister (surname).

In the case of Cliburn, per the MOS guidance above,  "For short lists of such persons, new sections ... can be added below the main disambiguation list [of the disambiguation page]", the three links to the articles about the persons should be merged into a surname section at Cliburn (disambiguation).

In the case of Simister, there is a total of three uses, the two persons and a small village whose article is at Simister. Per WP:TWODABS there is no need for even a dab page here, much less a separate surname page. Links to both persons can be provided for the reader seeking either person in a hatnote at the top of Simister. Born2cycle (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. These are not articles about the respective surnames. They are pointless splits from disambiguation pages that don't need splitting. Hesperian 04:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that there is no disambiguation page for Simister (Simister (disambiguation)), and that there is no need for one. The two surname uses (which are the only other uses) could be most effectively handled via hatnote links at the top of the primary topic article per WP:TWODABS: "If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, ...".  --Born2cycle (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointless articles. Bad idea to start splitting dab pages without good reason. Mhockey (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * comment there is an ongoing discussion about how names should be handled on dab pages at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation‎‎ of which the creator of this page and the deletion nominator are involved. I would suggest that discussion be resolved before this RfD gets closed.  I have also suggested the WikiProject Anthroponymy be involved in this discussion.  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 05:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "the creator of this page and the deletion nominator are involved." Aren't they the same person? Hesperian 05:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jwy means the creator of the pages nominated to be deleted (an administrator) and the nominator of this deletion (me) are both involved in the referenced discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Anthroponymy has been informed of this ongoing discussion. Born2cycle (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect and merge into Cliburn (disambiguation).  Corvus cornix  talk  07:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What Simister (surname)? There is no Simister (disambiguation).  In the nom I suggest hatnote links to the two uses.  --Born2cycle (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into Cliburn (disambiguation) Speedy keep now we have a genuine article about the surname, but oppose any attempt to remove the people (especially the pianist) from the general disambiguation page. This is all starting to look a bit pointy - where there are only three holders of a surname, and only brief etymological information besides, this seems to be a situation where the surname holders are most conveniently combined on one page with the other dab entries. Why give people yet another navigation step (or stretch out the hatnote on Cliburn even more) when the dab page would still be a nice short one even with the surnames on it?--Kotniski (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What about Simister (surname)? Also part of this... thanks!  --Born2cycle (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * With Simister the surname page is not quite so annoying, as there is no dab page for it to duplicate, but I still prefer the hatnote solution (it saves people a navigation step, which is good as long as the hatnote can be kept brief, as it can here).--Kotniski (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * respond to the edited version after strikethrough: there is no reason to keep the entries on the dab page once the anthroponymy article has been created. People who are commmonly known by only the single name get entries on the dab pages; people who happen to have a particular surname or given name are listed (separately, not with the topics that could have the ambiguous title) on the dab page only if there is no anthroponymy article. There seems to be a lot of effort to change this, without any effort to actual change the appropriate guidelines, which went through a lot of discussion to get to in the first place (per the background reading on the anthroponymy project). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. These are valid although short WP:Anthroponymy articles. MOS:DABNAME says that they don't need to be created, but it does not (and cannot, since they aren't dab pages) prohibit their creation. Nothing pointy about it -- this is the way that Anthroponymy list articles get created, by an editor who takes the time to split the partial title matches from their temporary holding place on the disambiguation to the appropriate anthroponymy list article. See WP:Anthroponymy and especially its background reading. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But their place on the disambiguation page only needs to be "temporary" if there's a significant amount of information (list of people, or etymological information etc.) about the surname. Do you think there's going to be a significant amount of people/information for these two surnames in the near future? If not, I don't see what's to be gained for anyone by putting them on separate pages - that just makes you do an extra click to find them, without noticeably increasing the usability of the disambiguation page.--Kotniski (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not what the guidelines says, no. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is JHJ seriously suggesting that these pages were created to "improve Wikipedia's coverage of ... information related to the names of people" (per WP:Anthroponymy) and not "to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term" (per WP:MOSDAB)? Mhockey (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been discussing this issue with JHJ for about a week now, and carefully reading everything he has posted about it, and still cannot understand what he is ultimately driving at (probably because he has not answered most of the clarifying questions I've asked him about it, such as these). All I can say is that he seems to have a peculiar aversion to the idea of using just surname to refer to people, or search for people, that he is unable or unwilling to explain.   Sifting through a lot of history has not shed much light on this, except I can tell you is that this has been an issue from at least 2006 :
 * JHJ: No one is likely to enter "Allen" in the search box to find "Tim Allen".
 * Charles Matthews: No one is likely to enter "Allen" in the search box to find "Tim Allen" is a comment with no merit at all (who is in a position to claim anything of the sort?).
 * I suggest Matthews' rhetorical question continues to apply today. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good. You did note that Matthews' rhetoric was in support of keeping the surname list article, right? So it is ironic that you feel it supports your proposition to delete the Cliburn surname list article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The rhetoric was in rebuttal to the specific point you made (and continue to make today) about the use of surnames for searching for persons being unlikely. The larger point is irrelevant to this, but I have no dispute with the existence and utility of splits from dab pages covering names which have at least dozens of links, as Allen (name) does.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that rebuttal lead to the change in my position, from getting rid of the surname lists as indiscriminate lists to instead the creation of the anthroponymy project for housing the lists -- since they aren't disambiguation pages. Which is the consensus Charles Matthews and I (and the rest of the involved editors at the time) came to. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Not being disambiguation pages" does not mean they don't provide a disambiguatory function; it just means they are not subject to the same style guidelines as are true dab pages. No one who has taken the time to wade through those archives, and at least Bkonrad and I have, has been able to find evidence of the formation of consensus for the claims you've been making that go way beyond page style considerations, but concern whether surnames alone are used to search for persons who have those surnames.  And you certainly have not provided any quotes or links to anything indicating that any such consensus ever existed, though you keep repeating your claim that it did.  Further, there apparently was not enough consensus to update the relevant guidelines.  For example, Conclusion 2 at Deletion policy/names and surnames (which is linked at the top of the anthroponymy project page) states: "Articles on surnames are useful as disambiguation  ...".  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge back Cliburn to dab page as there is no need for a separate three-persons surname page. Weak keek/neutral on Simister as there is no real dab page to merge the names, and as soon as such a surname page has been created for whatever reason (even a stupid one), it's not worth the drama to get them deleted. – sgeureka t•c 14:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the "drama" might be worth it to establish that consensus to delete such articles remains as has generally been the practice per the archives at the Anthroponymy project. By making the effort in this case to establish that consensus remains that the reason to create such articles is stupid (thanks for helping do that), other instances like this can be justifiably speedy deleted.   Please see the related more general discussion about this here. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no minimum length for surname list articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps none explicitly stated, but since MOS:DABNAME only mentions separation in the context of there being too many to be a section of the dab page, the implication is clear. And the convention seems to be create them when they help more than they hinder, and to delete them when they don't.  See WikiProject_Anthroponymy/Pending_deletions_archive for about a dozen examples of the latter.  Note that all but one of the surname articles nominated for deletion were deleted, and that the only one that wasn't, Kohring, does have some content about the name besides the people linked, and even then there was very little participation in that discussion so that doesn't say much about consensus.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The implication is that if the list is long, then is must be split off. There is no implication for short lists, which can be split whenever an editor feels like creating the anthroponymy list article. Flipping "long lists must be split" to "only long lists may be split" is a common logical fallacy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But what's the reason to split (at the cost of causing readers an extra level of redirection) if it's not too long? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To separate the list article from disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You keep asserting that the page is not a disambiguation page. If its purpose is not "to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term", what is it?  To provide a minimal amount of information about the surname?  Really? Placename dab pages often provide information about toponymy, but that is not their main purpose.  Why should surname pages be different?  Mhockey (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This question of Mhockey's is key, and has already been ignored once. It needs an answer. I would also add the question: If Cliburn (surname) is not a disambiguation page, then why are Van Cliburn, Stan Cliburn and Stu Cliburn no longer listed at Cliburn (disambiguation)? We're now in the situation where if I type in "Cliburn" looking for Stu Cliburn, I'll end up at a disambiguation page that lists only a village, a railway station, and an (alleged) article about the surname. But I'm not looking for any of those topics. I'm looking for the article on Stu Cliburn. Hesperian 23:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * According to JHJ's argument, as best as I can understand it, if you were looking for the article on Stu Cliburn, you would not be entering just "cliburn" in the search box, because you would not expect the Wikipedia article title of the article about him to be Cliburn. If you don't believe me I'd be happy to find references that add up to him essentially arguing this, again, as best as I can understand. What makes it difficult to know for sure is that JHJ has also demonstrated lately an uncanny and very annoying knack for ignoring pointed questions and statements about his positions (when he doesn't dismiss them as "legalese"), at least when it comes to these surname-related discussions.  This makes it particularly difficult to discuss it with him and even come to a point of agreeing to disagree about any specific point, much less finding consensus.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The question hasn't been ignored. Current consensus is that lists of name holders (that is, people who are not commonly known by just the single name, but have the single name as their given name or surname) are not disambiguation pages. See MOS:DABNAME, WP:Anthroponymy and especially its background reading. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you haven't ignored Mhockey's question, why can't any one of us locate your answer? Perhaps you've answered it in your mind, but unless you post an answer here it's still being ignored as far as the rest of us are concerned. Perhaps it will help if I reformat the question in a complete-the-sentence format:
 * The purpose of this page is not "to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term"; the purpose of this page is ____________________.
 * When I look at the references you provide, I see no answer at MOS:DABNAME, nor at WP:Anthroponymy, though the latter links to Deletion policy/names and surnames which says the exact opposite of what you claim: "Articles on surnames are useful as disambiguation ...".
 * By the way, you're now also ignoring Hesperian's followup-questions, and this is exactly what you did with my pointed questions for a whole week.  Perhaps they need to be posed in the complete-the-sentence format as well?  I'm sorry, but after putting up with over a week of this crap at this point I think it has to be said that your behavior resembles that of a troll.  --Born2cycle (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Search this page for the text "background reading". I don't know why you can't locate it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you're really stretching my ability to continue to assume good faith.  Are you seriously claiming your opening statement here is evidence of you not ignoring the question which was posted after you made that statement, in response to it?  Now you'll probably also ignore this question, an if Mhockey asks his question for a 3rd time, you'll never-the-less claim you already answered it.  This is the crap I've been putting up with for a week, and I can't believe you're continuing to spew more of it. As I've pointed out before (another point you can add to the long lists of points and questions you ignore), everyone who has looked at that "background reading" -- at least Bkonrad and I -- can't find whatever the heck you think it says that supports your position.  If you think something in that "background reading" is relevant here, please provide quotes of that material.  Otherwise please stop claiming it's there.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(Would it be possible to conduct this discussion in a more, let's say, respectful manner?) I think all it comes down to is this - sometimes (generally when there are a lot of people with a particular surname, as well as other meanings for the word which is the surname) it's more convenient for readers if we split the list of people off onto a separate page from the disambiguation page. Other times (when there aren't so many people with the surname) there isn't anything to be gained by doing that. General agreement here is that, whatever may be the case with other surnames, Cliburn is one of the occasions when there isn't anything to be gained by making such a split. Can we all, if grudingly, accept that? Then there's the question of Simister, which is slightly different - perhaps that's the one we should be addressing? What makes the better hatnote, a shorter one with a single link, or a slightly more intrusive longer one with two links that saves people a click?--Kotniski (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's obvious that everyone participating here so far but one person agrees with this, and the one who disagrees can't or won't explain the basis for his position and is either unable or unwilling to answer pointed questions about it, yet continues to espouse that position. How you have a discussion in this situation at all, much less a respectful is, frankly, beyond me. But I'm open to learning. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, no, it would not be possible to conduct this in a more respectful manner. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. We've got countless surname articles (Category:Surnames). Like JHunterJ mentioned, these kind of things are the bread and butter of WP:Anthroponymy. I'm gonna try and make a useful stub of this article and save it from deletion. If everyone pitched in we might be able to make a pretty good one. I suspect the first of the surname, Robert, who is recorded in 1364, is somehow connected to the Robert who built Cliburn Hall in 1387. The hall still exists today, apparently it was fixed up in the 1600s by a member of the Cliburn family. There's a photo of it in Google images search but I doubt we can use it. Anyway, a photo of the hall would be pretty cool for this article, sine it was built by a earler bearer of the name, and sits in the same town which gave rise to the surname. It'd be relevant to the article on the town too, since we've got a little section about it.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't have a real problem with moving the people to the disambig list, if that's what the consensus is, since there are only a few names. But the article actually about the surname should be kept separate. I've tried to make it into a proper stub now. It still can easily be expanded a bit to show stats: like how the name ranks in the US and UK. Things like that.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep this article has probably been created in responce to the move discussions at Talk:Freston, Suffolk and Talk:Cliburn. Personally I think creating thiese "sub disambiguation" pages was a reasonable responce to the discussions

This is what happened;


 * 1) I proposed a move at Talk:Freston, Suffolk (when I was still User:Homan's Copse)
 * 2) Me, JHunterJ and Born2cycle discuss this at Talk:Freston, Suffolk
 * 3) I made a comment at Talk:Freston, Suffolk saying "What about Cliburn...."
 * 4) Born2cycle Proposes Cliburn→Cliburn, Cumbria
 * 5) I make a comment at Talk:Cliburn about Simister
 * 6) JHunterJ creates Cliburn (surname) and Simister (surname)
 * 7) Born2cycle nominates them for deletion

Looking at JHunterJ's edit summery, I think the creation might also have something to do with Wikiproject Anthroponymy. This probably also has something to do with Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation.

Crouch, Swale  talk to me   My contribs  10:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what relevance all this history has - what purpose do you think this surname page now has? Do you think it should be about the history of the surname, as suggested above, or should it also serve as a means of keeping the people with the surname off the general dab page for Cliburn? I've no objection to having an article about the surname here, if we can find something to say about it - all I object to is the idea that once we have a surname page we shouldn't list the people on the dab page any more, which just seems like pointless rule-mongering that would make it harder for readers to find the articles they want, for apparently no gain. --Kotniski (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so now we have a stub article about the surname - which is different from most of the articles in Category:Surnames, which are almost all lists, as far as I can see. If the stub stays, the question becomes:  should the list stay in the stub article, or should it be moved back to the dab page?  To put it another way, is the purpose of the list to "help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term (i.e. Cliburn)", or is it to provide information about the name?  To my mind it is unhelpful to the reader to confuse the two.  If I am looking for info about the surname, I can reach the stub from the dab page.  But if I am looking for an article about someone called Cliburn, I now have to plough through a lot of irrelevant info about the history of the surname, to find the article I am looking for.  Mhockey (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the people should be listed at the dab page, though I have no objection to their also being listed on the surname page (since their number is so small, there shouldn't be any problems maintaining the list). --Kotniski (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Brianann MacAmhlaidh for helping us out here. What prompted this Afd is the creation of these articles for no apparent good reason.  As near as I can tell a good reason for a surname article is either (1) some content about the surname in question, or (2) as a dab page split for exceedingly large dab pages and long lists of people with that surnames, and even there I believe a "List of people with surname X" article would be more appropriate.  But I don't see the point of a content-less stub that splits out the persons with that surname from a short dab page (or, in a case with only a few total uses and so no dab page, from the hat note of the primary topic article on that homograph) to list them in the stub surname article instead.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but since you don't have a problem with moving the list of persons back to the dab page, I presume you don't see the point either. I agree with Kotniski.  If there is notable/sourced content about the respective surnames in these articles  they can stay, but the list of persons with these surnames are so short they need to stay on the dab pages (or hatnotes), but may also be listed in the surname article.  By the way, Mhockey has asked his question three times now; still no answer.  I'm just saying...   --Born2cycle (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Mhockey: the purpose of keeping partial title matches (including people who happen to have a given name or a given surname, but who aren't commonly known by the single name) is to keep readers who are looking for one of the "topics that might have the ambiguous title" ("ambiguous topics" was what I used to call those, except that some readers do not understand that term -- is there a better short phrase?) from having to plough through a lot of irrelevant information to get to it. The background reading links at the anthroponymy project lead to the discussions that lead to that consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I think we understand, but in this case, there are only three people listed, so there isn't a "lot of irrelevant information" (in fact the people are probably more likely to be relevant than are the other assorted topics on the dab page), so there doesn't seem to be any reason for taking them off the dab page. (Which is not to say they can't be listed on the surname article page as well.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's not "a lot of irrelevant information about the surname" that readers have to plough through there, as Mhockey said. So there's no reason to keep them on the dab page, and no reason to ignore the guidelines to list them in the surname article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's completely twisted. The only possible reason for taking these people off the dab page is so that users of the dab page don't have to plough through a lot of irrelevant information to find other entries. If there isn't a lot of irrelevant information (just three names), then there remains no reason to take them off the dab page. If there is a guideline somewhere that tells us to do what you suggest, then it should be amended sharpish, since it is clearly contrary to common sense (serves no purpose), consensus (witness these discussions) and actual practice (surname holders very very often and quite uncontroversially appear on dab pages all over the place).--Kotniski (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * JHJ, thank you for finally clearly defining what you mean by "ambiguous topics" ... "topics that might have the ambiguous title". I wish you had done that a week or so ago.   If I understand you correctly,  "topics that might have as their Wikipedia article title the homograph in question are ambiguous topics of that homograph" is an accurate statement.  To be clear that this concept is defined in terms of title, I'm going to use the term "ambiguous title topics" instead of "ambiguous topics", which also avoids the semantic problem of having "ambiguous" modify "topic".    Anyway, by that definition any topic that would not have a homograph in question as its title is not an "ambiguous title topic",  thus any topic that might have a title that includes, but is not entirely comprised of, the homograph, is also not an "ambiguous title topic", and so any person whose surname matches the homograph is also not an "ambiguous title topic", unless the person happen to be so commonly referred to by her or her surname that the title of their Wikipedia article might be just the homograph surname. Fine, but then what use is this notion of "ambiguous title topics" so defined?  In contrast, allow me to define "homograph topics" to mean all the Wikipedia article topics to which a given homograph might refer, regardless of whether each article might have the homograph as its title.  Back when the concept of "ambiguous title topics" was relevant to how titles were disambiguated it obviously played an important role, but since then community thinking and consensus seems to have evolved to realize the main function of disambiguation is to aid readers in finding the articles that they seek.  That is, going back to a version of WP:D from a couple of years ago, it stated: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title."  Significantly, it doesn't say that any more.  However, even then, those words were in conflict with what it said lower down in the same version: "Ask yourself: When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and clicks 'Go', what article would she most likely be expecting to view as a result? ...When more than one possibility exists, there should be a way for readers to find their way quickly from the page whose title is that term to any of the articles which might reasonably be called by that term. ".  That is, disambiguation is not just about helping readers find their way to articles about just the "ambiguous title topics" of the title of the article they landed on, it is about helping readers find their way to articles about all of the "homograph topics" of the search string they are using to find that article.  It's a big and important change, and is consistently supported in the current revision of WP:D, which today says, "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead.".   And, so,  concepts like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are now defined entirely in terms of how likely the "homograph topics" (not the just the "ambiguous title topics") are to be sought using the homograph in question relative to how likely any other "homograph topics" are to be sought using that homograph as search criteria.   Anyway, I think we all agree that "a lot of irrelevant information about the surname" does not belong on dab pages for the homograph that is the surname, and justifies the creation of a surname article with all that "irrelevant information" about the surname as content,  but that doesn't mean that the links to the articles about the persons with that surname should be removed from the dab page, except when there are so many that a split is warranted.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * B2C, it's too bad you didn't read my reply in one of your many other splinters, nor can refrain from random passive-aggressive bolding. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, I saw that once this weekend on my phone, but then couldn't find it again to reply to it and assumed I dreamed it or something. Had I found it I would have replied in about this same manner then since that was on Saturday Dec 4, almost a week after I first asked for the clarification about "ambiguous topics" on Monday Nov 29 in the Freston discussion.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This all looks like progress. Today's edits to WP:D are also helpful.  Partial title matches belong on a dab page if a topic could reasonably be referred to (and searched for) by the partial title.  So New York City, Burton upon Trent and Hinton Blewett belong on the dab pages New York (disambiguation), Burton and Hinton.  The same principle should apply to surnames (if anyone disagrees, can they please say why?).  That conforms with the basic principle of dab pages set out at the opening of WP:MOSDAB.  Where there remains a difference is whether there should be a stiffer test for surnames than other partial titles, i.e. whether it should only apply to people who are "commonly known by the single name", as JHJ puts it.  And if that test is applied, how do we make the judgement?  Are there any people who are not known by their surnames in certain contexts?  If so, which contexts are "common" and which are not?  Mhockey (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Based on the initial version, I might have opted for delete, but this is at least a start to an article about the name. older ≠ wiser 17:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources are a questionable basis for notability. They seem to be acting as a retroactive and specious justification for a dab split, not a stub article with potential for expansion with facts, there is no evidence it would be information sought by a reader. Users want to get to information, not admire a maze of pseudo-articles, redirects, and disambiguation pages: delete. — cygnis insignis 19:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you think readers are not interested in information about surnames? My experience of the world is that people quite often take an interest in the history and etymologies of personal names (especially their own). Why should Wikipedia decline to help them? --Kotniski (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. If Cliburn (surname) is not a disambiguation page but an article about the surname itself, then why are Van Cliburn, Stan Cliburn and Stu Cliburn no longer listed at Cliburn (disambiguation)? We're now in the situation where if I type in "Cliburn" looking for Stu Cliburn, I'll end up at a disambiguation page that lists only a village, a railway station, and an (alleged) article about the surname. But I'm not looking for any of those topics. I'm looking for the article on Stu Cliburn. Hesperian 23:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI Kotniski fixed the problem but your question is still valid since JHJ is still arguing that guidelines and practice indicate that persons with a given surname don't belong on dab pages for the homograph of that surname (except those exceptionally known by surname only) (that's my wording of his argument). However, his page now indicates an indefinite wikibreak so don't hold your breath.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep well written surname article. Don't see any reason to delete. -DJSasso (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2010 (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.