Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank William


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 06:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Frank William

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nom and favor ... ...Del. (Although both Disambig and Hndis tags have been advocated for this list, i would hope its suitability as any kind of main-namespace pg can be settled without having to address that those red herrings.) I confess to preferring the deletion of all given name pages that don't offer a substantial discussion of the origin and meaning of the name itself, and regard their lists of examples as at best a neglible form of clutter, but i am not here to advocate for that position. Rather i want to make the case that even if lists of people sharing a given name serve an encyclopedic purpose, we can only harm the project by trying to host lists of people sharing a pair of given names. The US census bureau provides a wonderful list] of the given names that account for the most popularly named portion of the male population in 1990. These given names number 1219, and collectively are the (first) given names of a tad over 90% of males. If we were to cover all two-name combinations, such as Frank William, that consist of two of those names, we would add 1.4 million pages. For females, parents apparently are considerably less narrow-minded, and we could expect those 4275 names to provide titles for another 18 million pages. WP is not paper, but devoting resources to our current 2.8 million pages leaves us with lag and many neglected pages. Consider abt a tenfold size increase, not to mention what would be needed to start to provide for those with name combinations less popular than Cindie Ann and Audrie Marie. I feel like i'm piling on, but i have to also reflect on the purpose of these pages. Are they not primarily a diffuse sort of vanity page, of the variety suggested in John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt? --Jerzy•t 09:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC) Comment Those who have contributed here may wish to comment on the AfDs of theses similar pages: André Henri, Paulo Jorge, Marie Constant and Francis William. Boleyn2 (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the reasons given above. Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) confirms that this does not meet the criteria for a disambig or hndis page, and 'Frank William' is not a given name - Frank is the given name. Boleyn2 (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is written like a page for the name itself and the people mentioned seem to be a sidenote. We already have articles for William and Frank, we don't need this. Letsdrinktea (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It does seem to be a page just for the sake of having a page. Fattonyni (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment without recommendation - it appears that nom is basing this (and perhaps other) nominations, not on MOS:DAB (which is actually rather silent about this situation) but on WP:IDONTLIKEIT instead. If the nom wishes to nuke given name pages, he/she should start the discussion as to whether the mention of given names should not be mentioned at all in MOS:DAB; similarly, WP:ALLORNOTHING is being implied here, yet this is not a valid reason for either keeping or deleting an article, a redirect, or even a disambiguation page. In addition, nom "confesses to preferring the deletion of all given name pages that don't offer a substantial discussion of the origin and meaning of the name itself" - yet MOS:DAB discourages such a presentation in article space in the first place. At present I remain unconvinced one way or the other as I am unsure as to whether these people are referred to regularly as "Frank William" as opposed to simply "Frank". On the other hand, claiming that this is a vanity page denies good faith, which itself is a violation of one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia (two of them, actually). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2009 (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.