Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laimnesis (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. Not a good speedy delete candidate, but a proper deletion candidate, which lacks notability. A name amongst thousands of others. Fram (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Laimnesis (name)

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

Delete nn topic. No evidence that this name is borne by anybody notable. Mayalld (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep notable enough to have a name day, provides info as stub. [User:Mayalld|Mayalld]]'s proposed deletion already removed today. Artlondon (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment For transparency's sake, it should be noted that User:Artlondon is the one that removed the PROD. Glass  Cobra  21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Why does a given name have to be borne by anyone notable to be included to Wikipedia?
 * According to CSD paragraph 7, an article on a real person "...does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable...". The article Laimnesis (name) might be notable since its unique to the Latvian language, which is also the reason why there is no evidence on Wikipedia (yet), that this name is borne by anybody notable. Since Latvians only comprises about 1,5 million people, and there are only 398 biography stubs on Latvians at the moment, only time will show us an article on a notable Laimnesis. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 21:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete the nominator has it right, and Philaweb is off the mark bigtime: we're not debating whether this is speedily deletable, it's having its day in the sun and the article must do more than give a reasonable indication that it might be notable, it must pass WP:N. It does not. Having a name day is a cultural-religious thing: there's no indication that only notable names have a day or that days don't have multiple names so that every name thought up in the delivery room gets affixed to the calendar. Most likely some saint in the past had this name. Perhaps he may merit an article; perhaps not - not much seems to be available on the subject. But notability isn't necessarily transfered by the possessor of a name to the name itself - otherwise, beware of WP:BEANS let's create stubs on all the one-off names borne by TV, music, fashion, and sports figures; or heck, anyone "notable" on whom we have an article. As for names, if this is so notable, why doesn't the Latvian Wiki have an article on the subject? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:"...we're not debating whether this is speedily deletable..", why this page then? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 22:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The comment answers itself, speedy deletions are not debated. see WP:CSD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me then, but why is this page categorized in Category:AfD debates? What are we supposed to debate then? According to Guide_to_deletion this is what this page is about:
 * "When an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than five days, in order to come to a public rough consensus about whether the article is unsuited to Wikipedia. Following five days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly." Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 11:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally understood what you mean. Please forget the above text. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 12:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:"...if this is so notable, why doesn't the Latvian Wiki have an article on the subject...?", perhaps because there are only 16,134 articles on lvwiki and noone held that particular article as a priority. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 22:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:"...beware of WP:BEANS let's create stubs on all the one-off names borne by TV, music, fashion, and sports figures; or heck, anyone "notable" on whom we have an article." My problem is lack of references, I confess on that - but that is what stubs are for. Latvian names are not "one-off", they are historical names dating back to pre-Christian times. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 22:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment geo stubs are being created for EVERY settlement regardless of population or notabilty, with the idea info can be added later when people find the stub. Most people have no idea how to start an article, whereas can add to one - this is how wikipedia grows. Artlondon (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice straw man argument; settlements are inherently notable, see WP:OUTCOMES for explanation and try to delete one you think isn't....and as for how it grows, please demonstrate that an encyclopedic article can be written on Laimnesis (name), you have an edit function... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit button found, article grew. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 10:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. One of possibly hundreds of thousands of different given names in the World, and I can't see anything that makes this one particularly notable. I disagree with Artlondon's comparison with geo-stubs since settlements have, by precedent, attained "inherent notability" and this has not happened (perhaps yet) for given names. Other stuff exists is a good discussion of the "article x exists and so y should too" argument. Jll (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2008 (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.