Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Naga surnames


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

List of Naga surnames

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:LISTN as there is no evidence that this is a notable topic. Also, the list will have inclusion/exclusion issues. Would a surname possessed by one Naga person only still be noteworthy enough for inclusion? Spiderone 15:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  15:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  15:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  15:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

*Keep: Definitely needs work but legit list per WP:CLN, WP:NOTDUP states: "building a rudimentary list of links is a useful step in improving a list. Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks" and WP:AOAL lays out potential advantages. This is still very rudimentary and maybe not ready for mainspace, so Draftify might be an option.  // Timothy ::  talk  14:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And per appropriate topics for lists, we have "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example, a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value." and "Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge." This article covers a topic that is too large, unverifiable and, most importantly, has no place in an encyclopaedia. Spiderone  14:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: re: The different lists of names that have been nominated. You are a lot more experienced that I am which made me really think about this, if a consensus begins to emerge for Delete, I would definitely reconsider. I can really see both sides of the argument and I went back and forth when I was thinking about it. What pushed me over into Keep was erring on the side of caution. This particular list is so underdeveloped that I could see it Deleted, the others would be a harder to sway me. Hope you are well.   // Timothy ::  talk  15:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've seen these lists on here for a few years but I've always wondered why we have never seen List of French surnames or List of English surnames and, for me, it's because such lists would be ridiculously long, generally unverifiable and you'd also have to question what value they would add to an encyclopaedia. Anyway, I'm interested to see how these AfDs go. Spiderone  06:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm with 's comment at 14:35 above and note that WP:CLN etc are just guidelines, not policies. Anyone can call themselves anything, and it is unlikely that any list of surnames supposedly of one particular group are in fact exclusive to that group. In some situations, it can give rise to BLP violations also (a common issue with surname articles - not lists, but like Topsy, these things tend to grow). Anyone who has spent a bit of time digging around even supposed top-notch references works such as the Oxford family names dictionaries will know that they are inconsistent even within themselves. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete (changed vote): I was reading this discussion posted on a similar discussion and the mention of "List of Jewish names" startled me. I actually can't believe it didn't occur to me immediately what various lists of names that usually to belong to a particular group have been used for historically. This may not have occured to others as well. I know this was absolutely not in anyway the intention with these Wikipedia lists, but good intentions can be used by those with other than good intentions. This is enough for me to switch to Delete. I doubt there is a policy or guideline to directly support this reasoning, but per WP:IGNORE I think Delete is the best way to improve the encyclopedia.   // Timothy ::  talk  07:52, 3 August 2020 (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.