Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Michael (the name)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

John Michael (the name)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Proposed deletion reason (not by me) was "Essay ish and completely unnecessary". removed without improvements. While there is no good speedy deletion category for this article, there is no good argument for keeping it either. The subject of the specific name "John Michael" is only mentioned once in passing (as an example), and fails WP:N completely. Fram (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete English language names are not in themselves notable -- Boing!   said Zebedee  10:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Also fails WP:NPV. &amp;dorno rocks. (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep though small, there are sources on this name. It is a stub that can be expanded, and it could meet GNG. Who says "English language names are not in themselves notable." If something meets GNG, it is notable, and that is final. I also see nothing un-neutral about it. Dew Kane (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since no one even mentioned it being "un-neutral", I have no idea why you bring up that strawman argument. The rest of your arguments are completely baseless unless you provide some evidence for them. How can it be expanded? How could it meet the GNG? Where are the sources on this name? Fram (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - unnecessary article. But, If kept, move to John Michael - no need for disambiguation (perhaps hatnote to John Michaels). PamD (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above - the name itself isn't terribly notable, as shown. That said, I think we could maybe, maybe make an argument for a disambiguation page - I see several John Michael Somebodys on the search results, and we also have John and Michael, which might fit. If there is confusion between subjects, we might consider such a page - though there seems to be no pressing need. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:07, 15 April 2010 (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.