Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English names


 * 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. Mr.  Z- man  19:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

List of English names

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Deletion nomination:The list is arbitrary and shows no real discrimination in deciding what to be included. Plus, what makes a name English? Insanely broad, entirely unverifiable. As Bob Marley said, you've got to kill it before it grows... Jayron32| talk | contribs 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete this is a baby names web page. JJL 18:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Gosh, and I always thought names like Caleb and Benjamin and Sarah dated from Biblical times. Of course, there are some who believe that the Bible proves that Jesus spoke in English.  Mandsford 22:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, how depressing. D: Anyway, first off, there are "English names." For example, you wouldn't consider "Mitsuki" an English name, would you? But a name like "Julia" could be called an English name. Come on, people, this isn't hard. Also, there's a list of Japanese names that I modeled this after. If this one is to be deleted, shouldn't that one be, too? An also, an encyclopedia is open to so many things. There's no reason why names wouldn't also belong here, is there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlene Sinclair (talk • contribs) 22:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   —Fg2 00:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete pretty much a random list of names. Why do people feel the need to make a list for everything.  Ridernyc 00:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Aw, c'mon! Why are you people so boring? The list can be useful! It can be used to find meanings of names, or names of certain meaning! :] I don't understand why you have to pick at it so. What if it was changed to 'list of common English names'? Would that be better for you?
 * Probably not. We're so boring, even dull folks like us find the article "List of English names" to be boring.  Reading it is like going to a party and hearing people talk about what to name the baby.  "I like Phillip because it's English for 'lover of horses'".  I read that this year, there will FINALLY be a book that lists boys and girls names and gives a meaning for each one.  Imagine that.  All this time, we've been waiting for it My opinion is that truly "English" names are like Nigel or Winston or Neville or Beatrice... Mandsford 02:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:DIRECTORYRidernyc 02:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * transfer to category-for those that are not redlinked, that does represent an outlay of time, and that would be a useful categorization. Chris 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I doubt that article could ever work... I mean, it has Xanthe on it, that's a Greek name. It doesn't have anything under D at all. It has Rob, Robbie and Robert listed separately- imagine how long it'd get if you listed every single variation of every name that somebody considers to be an English name! There are dozens, if not hundreds of websites that do this better, not to mention the baby name books you can get at your friendly local bookshop. It might work as a category though. MorganaFiolett 08:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Aren't Rob, Robbie and Robert all Scottish names? It seems to me as if the inclusion criteria are too vague. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 20:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Transfer to Category- Already an English name category. No need that it also be a list page. Remember 13:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, makes absolutely no sense as an article. Only marginally better as a category. --Nehwyn 17:38, 14 October 2007 (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.