Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zav/Zavah

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. There seems to be a weak consensus that this doesn't work as a disambiguation page, and that hatnotes should be used instead. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zav/Zavah[edit]

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

Not disambiguation, as correctly noted in the last edit to this page. Used to be an article about these two terms in one. No necessary since sufficiently interlinked. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - currently there's not a single article that links to this page (see here), but I changed its design a little and think it could stay as a directory. Shalom11111 (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep For some reason I feel that the page is quite helpful; two closely spelled terms of somewhat different meanings pertaining to Judaism. No harm in keeping it. --CyberXRef^☎ 23:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am commenting after Shalom11111's update to the page which made it much more useful. --CyberXRef^☎ 23:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure why there are two pages for what is the same word and concept but in masculine and feminine form. However, a disambig page seems unnecessary, since both sufficiently link to each other and are thematically virtually the same. I think a WP:HATNOTE would make much more sense here. Also the title of the page only makes sense in the context of being a previously created page. mikeman67 (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete the function of this page could be equally served with hatnotes, as the page title seems an unlikely search term. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:21, 9 March 2014 (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.