There is a sign with this name, see source:name. Therefore, it is NOT an arbitrary descriptive term.  I don't understand why this is a problem, a name CAN sometimes be descriptive and not all names are unique.  I cannot understand the dogmatism surrounding the name issue and I clearly reject mass-edit.  I find that quite presumptuous... I also don't see a note like this as helpful, the individual case here is pretty clear.  That's why I'm closing it again now.