Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Thracian anthroponyms


 * 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. I'll userfy this on request.  Sandstein  05:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Thracian anthroponyms

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

Indisriminite list Mblumber (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Indiscrminate? This is very specific. I just started, see the talk page for my response and explanation. It will get long and detailed with text & etymologies. You can't handle this with categories like you can the superfluous list of illustrators. Delete that. Not this. Thanks, Alex (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  List of names is indiscriminate, if you ask me.    To me, this is no different than List of Chinese/Japanese/Indian names.  WP is not a list of indiscriminate stuff Corpx (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Thracian is unattested in writing and no longer spoken, if it has a linguistic descendant is unknown. It's not indiscriminate, it's very discriminate. Unless you're a cookie-muncher. Alex (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We need detailed articles on these topics to educate the people. Otherwise you will have situations like the one currently at Illyrians: which has to be protected from certain editors, most of whom don't know much about the Illyrian language or Thracian language, they just have ethnic/nationalist/patriotic fervor. Articles like this will show people what we know about these languages. It will be too much to merge into Thracian language. Alex (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about the happenings of the article, but making a list of names used by people who spoke a certain language is indiscriminate in my opinion.  I dont want to see wikipedia become a database of names used by people across the centuries.  Corpx (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Question Are you planning on using references or is this original research? Articles like this are better off in user space until they are adolescent at least. Drawn Some (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As stated in the article, there will be no original research. The information will be taken from the "linguistic literature". It's a list now but there be referenced etymologies (more than one in many caes) and text. Text about suffixes, common components in the names, etc. what parts of Thrace they were found in etc. Alex (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But there are no references now. That's why I say articles like this are best birthed in user space.  You don't really want anyone messing with it while you construct it anyhow.  You're probably going to have to use a table instead of a simple list. It's going to take quite some time to put it together. Drawn Some (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's correct, it will take me like two months (5 months) to get it looking more like how I want it. So on those grounds, a deletion would be fine, but why bother deleting it? I will create it again later, next time having it together, and it will be called Thracian anthroponyms, with a lot of text. Alex (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I copy-pasted it to a user subpage. Alex (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unsourced, of little use and almost no context. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrong, it is of much use, and has a lot of context, you're just not familar with these articles. People are such cookie-munching wikilawyer wannabes at this website sometimes. Alex (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE.Tyrenon (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It won't be indiscriminate when I recreate the article. Please delete all those articles on individual Pokemon characters and MASH episodes. Alex (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You biscuits should delete List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) etc. Alex (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To be completely honest with you, I think that this stuff (although unsourced) is way more encyclopedic than the Pokemon stuff, but it's impossible to delete the fan site stuff from here because the fan club will be up in arms about it.  Corpx (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I don't really mind if it gets deleted this time around (I copy-pasted it), but I will raise a ruckus to protect my built up version once I have it. Alex (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Userfy - article author clearly wants to improve it some time in the future, and it cannot stay as it is per Niteshift36. --Pgallert (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Another comment It seems like it is problematic for some. If I were you, I would ask for advice and guidance from some other editors also knowledgeable in the subject area before spending two months on it only to see it deleted after a day of hot back-and-forth at AfD followed by another six days of your stomach burning.  Surely there is not the first article of its type.  Ruckuses only get inappropriate articles saved in rare circumstances and I doubt this one would be able to get saved that way from what I've seen.  To be clear I don't see any problem with it, on its face it would seem to be no different than a list of Etruscan anthroponyms, etc. and I never would have imagined it could be controversial.  You might consider dropping the "list" name and concept, they seem to be somewhat more controversial than regular articles.  I always like reading articles like this, they're what make encyclopedias interesting to browse so I look forward to the finished article. Drawn Some (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll try to have plenty of text. I'll be working on it now & then in user space but the references are so hard to find I don't think it will be ready for 6 or 8 months (to have it survive AFd for sure), taking into account how much time I'll have to work on it and the availability of the references for the etymologies and morphological features etc.. Till then I'll just improve the Thracian language article. Alex (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)d
 * Oh I didn't mean to discourage you that much. Why don't you line up some references and then use them to start an article? Drawn Some (talk)
 * 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.