Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antė


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Ante (name). Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Antė

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NNAME and has no WP:SIGCOV. I can't seem to find any reliable and relevant sources. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  07:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I moved this here two years ago with basically the same rationale, . If nothing came up in this time, there isn't much WP:POTENTIAL. Let's do a courtesy ping of the original author of that line from 2019, --Joy (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The history and usage of a name is notable in and of itself. Keep and add references as necessary; don't delete just to delete. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment A name is not inherently notable and there is nothing special about this name. It fails WP:NNAME and its content could be sufficiently explained in Ante (name) anyway, but as Joy argued, there may not even be a need for that. Also, adding unreliable sources isn't going to help your cause. How about don't keep just to keep? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t see the point in deleting articles just for the heck of it. I found some sources that verify the meaning with a 10 second Google search, which means there are quite likely better published sources in existence that I don’t have access to. It is apparently the Lithuanian version of Tony, which also suggests that there are probably notable people who go by the nickname. I don’t have the time or inclination to dig up all the references here but I don’t like nominations for deletion for articles that should be improved instead.
 * Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't like to see articles that could be improved nominated for deletion either, but I believe that this name simply isn't notable. As I previously mentioned, there are no Wikipedia articles on people with this name, and there is nothing significant about it, so it fails the basic rule of WP:NNAME. Many of those sources explaining etymology are likely unreliable. I don't know if better sources exist, but I sure can't find any. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Suriname0 (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll suggest returning the content to Ante (name) as an alternative to deletion. I do, however, note Joy's argument that there doesn't appear to be much potential for improvement. This is therefore a weak merge suggestion. Cnilep (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ante (name), as a reasonable solution. BD2412  T''' 21:12, 13 January 2024 (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.