Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of eponyms


 * 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 keep. Core desat 03:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

List of eponyms

 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Listing all eponyms is the definition of an indiscriminate list. An eponym is any word derived from a person. While some more specific lists of eponyms do exist, such as List of eponymous adjectives in English and List of eponymous laws, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and should not have a list that due to volume can never be complete. Could be redirected to Eponyms --  Wikipedical (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as nominator. --  Wikipedical (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and useful and found in other encyclopedias. - Kittybrewster  &#9742;  08:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep' The subject of eponyms and the persons who supply the name is encyclopedic, contrary to the suggestion that this is simply trivial. Google books search shows an appreciable number of titles, ranging from pure reference (A New Dictionary of Eponyms, Eponyms in Psychology, Dictionary of Medical Eponyms, etc.) to entertainment (Melba Toast, Bowie's Knife and Casesar's Wife; Guppies in Tuxedos, etc.).  This is not, contrary to assertion, an indiscriminate list, nor is it unmaintainable, though it's interesting that it's argued as both.  Mandsford (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Mandsford's research. The topic appears to be specific enough to merit a dictionary and other books. I don't think the list qualifies as indiscriminate since its foundational topic meets notability guidelines.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  16:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep a good example of a notable list. Mandsford should add the references he found.  DGG (talk) 21:55, 24 November 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.