Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given 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. I have however moved it to WikiProject Anthroponymy/List of given names prior to deletion, as suggested.  Sandstein  07:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

List of given names

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

We have Category:Given names for that, which is much better sorted and not full of unreferenced, unverifiable entries. Magioladitis (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY C T J F 8 3  chat 18:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Open-ended list. Carrite (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom, redundant list (Also a disambiguation page link-fixer's nightmare) The Interior (Talk) 23:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete More than anything, this reminds me of one of those racks of little license plates in a gift shop, and the disappointment in finding that there isn't a plate for your name. Basically, this is a long list of Wikipedia articles about given names, and a potentially endless list of names that don't have a Wikipedia article.  Although lists and categories can co-exist, I don't see anything that this list provides, other than a caution against naming a little girl "Aadu" or "Aarne" because those are boys' names.  There's potentially no end to the red-links--  Abbondanza ♀, Abbondanzio ♂, Abbondio ♂ are a perfect example of how one can vary a particular name -- I suppose one could look on this list to see whether there's an article about the given name "Abbondanza", but more likely they can type it into the search box, A-b-b-o-n-d-... and hey!  my name isn't on here.  Mandsford 00:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to wiktionary looks like it should be a wiktionary appendix. 76.66.199.238 (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nominator is wrong on all accounts. Magioladitis stated the cat is better sorted than this page, but that's not true since the page gives the genders and is alphabetically ordered. Magioladitis stated that this page is "full of unreferenced, unverifiable entries", but the cat is exactly the same. I checked the first 10 "names" in the cat, only 1 has a reference for a name; actually these pages were mostly mini disambig pages that just happen to list a few names and other things. The fact is that this page is no worse than the cat, and it has a slight advantage because it's neat and easy to get what your looking for on one page. I can't argue the WP:NOTDIRECTORY point, or the fact this list has the potential to be "practically endless", or that it is really just a maze of redlinks ATM. I think a copy of this page ought to be retained by WikiProject Anthroponymy, because it could be helpful to editors since the redlinks easily show which names have no presence at all on Wikipedia.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At least the category contains only names whch are reasonably guaranteed to exist. This list omits hundreds of names which do exist, and contains hundreds of redlinks to "names" which one has no reason to believe in. If there was proper sourcing one might begin to take it seriously. In its present form it's a complete waste of space. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not have it a Wiktionary? Wiktionary has tonnes of redlinks, and has appendices that are just lists. 76.66.196.13 (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Move this to an appropriate project space. It just isn't article material. Please note that Wiktionary already has extensive listings and appendices of given names. bd2412  T 16:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE (For a while ^^) 


 * Hello,
 * I'm the author of this superfluous article ...
 * This unreasonable monsterlist is meant to be a provocation for editors to improve this subject area ... (worklist) ....
 * It's always much more easy to call out "kick'em", than to contribute constructive thoughts ...
 * Five times "Delete" - My argumentations will be going to be in vain, - fruitless discussions I evade ...
 * H. Klaus M. Hoffmann (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Move &mdash; This is an important page for quality assurance (completeness) in the context of the WikiProject Anthroponymy. I agree that it does not fit with the article inclusion or list inclusion criteria for Wikipedia for the main space.  I would, therefore, advocate its being moved out of the main space.  On the matter of Wiktionary, an appendix already exists for this at wikt:Appendix:Names; therefore, I am removing the migrate to Wiktionary template on the page.  We do need a good synchronization method between the two, which currently doesn't exist.  Why would the Wiktionary page not be sufficient?  Because a listing in the Wikitionary list does not provide any completeness information for Wikipedia, which is (in my opinion) the primary reason for retaining the list in a non-main namespace.  --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 11:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment sounds like it should projectify to WPAnthroponymy... like at WikiProject Anthroponymy/List of given names ? 76.66.196.13 (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. If there is a category, there should be a list. I don;t know what counts as superfluous, but a list duplicating a category is just an alternate way of presenting things, and every bit as useful--and useful is a valid criterion for navigational devices. .  DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2010 (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.