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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noor Jahan

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only 2 names in disambig. ((for)) is enough Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you fix that for tag! Also, I don't see an issue with a 2-article disambig page, since both are bluelinks. Then again, disambig policy is not something I know much about, hence no vote. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why this was nominated for deletion. A two entry disambiguation page is perfectly acceptable, unless the nominator has some objection to the links. Funny ^Pika! 02:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is the only conclusion without making one of the topics the primary topic, which the proposal does not include. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: resolving two possible intended articles for a typo. No reason to delete. If either of them didn't exist, there would be a redirect from the typo to the other article: as they share a possible typo, dab page is the solution. PamD 13:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just fixed a typo in one of the entries - it was going via a redirect - but the case remains the same. There are 4 versions of Nur/Noor Jehan/Jahan, all of which seem necessary, and we need to ensure that readers can find either of the two target articles. PamD 13:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nur Jahan. I think an influential Mughal empress trumps a great singer as far as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC goes, in particular "long-term significance". A hatnote can be added to Nur Jahan. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PamD. And while I understand Clarityfiend's reasoning regarding who's the primary topic, I note that raw Google tests seem to produce vastly more hits for the esteemed singer. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2013 (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.