Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people known by initials


 * 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 List of people known by initials and List of people known by middle name; no consensus on List of pseudonyms and List of stage names. This is a difficult close but I see no substantial argument as to why the first two lists are contended by some to be useful. They are a collection of unconnected facts. However, the other two lists clearly cover encyclopaedic information which is non-obvious, and two participants in the debate outline reasons for treating them separately which deserve consideration. Sam Blacketer 00:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

List of people known by initials

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I am also nominating the following articles:


 * List of people known by middle name
 * List of pseudonyms
 * List of stage names

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information neither is it a directory. Additionally despite the great length of these lists there is not a single source between them. Do these lists really belong on Wikipedia? Guest9999 04:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete- list cruft of worst kind. It goes.JJJ999 04:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment; It would make sense to relist these separately, they may all violate the same policies, but to different degrees. In group AFDs like this the inclusion of one decent list often means that several bad lists get kept. I'd probably support deleting them all anyway, particularly List of people known by initials which is an indiscriminate mess. Masaruemoto 04:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:DIRECTORY Chris!  c t 05:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 08:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not sure what to say about this besides listcruft.Ridernyc 10:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all four lists per nom. – sgeureka t•c 10:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. As noted above, these four list vary in quality and so it is poor process to consider them together.  An inspection indicates that there are few red links and so the notability of the list entries will be supported by the articles to which they link.  We really don't need separate cites here for Stalin or Lenin, say.  While the first two lists appear to be minor, the lists of pseudonyms and stage names seem quite useful and their structure seems better than an equivalent category. Colonel Warden 11:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Relist separately, per Masaruemoto. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 13:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete List of people known by initials and List of people known by middle name. - Snigbrook 14:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:DIRECTORY. Snigbrook 15:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * relist separately these are very different. Even  :Masaruemoto who thinks he will !vote to delete them all wants them listed separately. I note that usefulness is one of the positive criteria for a list. DGG (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Relist separately --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Relist separately to allow separate evaluation per Colonel Warden's analysis. —Quasirandom 18:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All four lists are not needed, not notable and seriously crufty. DBZROCKS   Its over 9000!!!  21:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was going to say relist. But after some thought, although they're not as bad as each other, I can't see any value in any of them.  They can never begin to adequately cover the subject they've set out to cover, and are unlikely to ever be adequately cited.  The end result is trivial listcruft -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all or relist separately in which case I'll still say delete; these lists are not necessary.  Bur nt sau ce  22:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all - no need to consider these separately as they are all directories of loosely associated topics. There is no commonality between the people included on any of the lists beyond what amounts to a coincidence of name. Otto4711 02:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think an argument could possibly be made to keep the List of stage names.  Unlike the others, it seems like a plausible list, although it would probably be better to break in up into lists of stage names in different fields of acting.  For example, List of West End theatre stage names.  Either way, the possibility should be considered separately from the rest. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 08:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I've just been browsing the List of stage names and it's fascinating.  For example, Jay Silverheels' real name was Harold Smith!  Colonel Warden 17:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep All. I am not sure what an indiscriminate list is versus a discriminate list, someone needs to come up with strict definitions so that 10 people asked will all come up with the same answers when asked: "is this indiscriminate or discriminate. Right now I see indiscriminate as a code word for "I Don't Like It", the same goes for "Listcruft". Any good reference work, including the New York Times, has sidebars with lists of information. I see the lists as useful and easily sourced for verification. You may notice that the top 100 searches in Wikipedia are always entertainment articles, this is what people come here for. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you withdrawing your previous position that the articles should be relisted seperately? Guest9999 11:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)]]


 * Comment I guess you fail to grasp the idea of indiscriminate list. This is an indiscriminate list because it is inexhaustible. Everyone can potentially be known by initials. It is simply unencyclopedic to have an endless list of non-notable names or initials here. WP:NOT states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." And no, "I Don't Like It" is the completely unrelated. This nomination is not a matter of "like or hate," it is a matter of usefulness and notability and encyclopedic-ness. Also your vote here carried no weight since you have cast your votes twice. Either strike this one or that one out if you feel that your position has changed. Chris!  c t 01:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "Relist" and "keep or delete" are not mutually exclusive, one is a comment, the other a vote (even though this isnt a vote). Almost every list will be open ended, as we add a new president every few years, or another movie wins the Academy Award, if we assume time is open ended. If you have problems with the inclusion criteria, then suggest changes. I don't think there is any doubt that e.e. cummings or J.R.R. Tolkien are known by their initials. Its also very easy to source and verify, by linking to obituaries in Time magazine, or the New York Times, or Encyclopedia Britannica. Also I don't think "indiscriminate" and "interminable" are synonyms. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * comment The main reason to delete is because of the list fails to assert some sort of notability. Even if you sourced every name on the list, I still fail to see the encyclopedic value of this page. Chris!  c t 06:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * keep Indiscriminate means listing everything of a type without caring about whether they are important, such as all the elementary schools in Texas, or all the movies ever made; when it is limited to those things that are important, and when there is some basis for selection, is not indiscriminate. This is obviously limited to the significant items covered in wikipedia where these are known by a particular type of name. interesting and useful are relevant criteria for lists. The validity of individual items is an editing decision. There is no policy in WP that lists are discouraged--they are a perfectly valid form of encyclopedia article. People who are personally offended by them don't have to bother with them, but can go edit other things. We dont have to limit WP to what one group of people like. It's a general comprehensive encyclopedia. If we went by what we like, I would immediately nominate every article on (say) professional wrestling for deletion, as an indiscriminate form of entertainment with purely artificial notability and insufficient dignity for an encyclopedia, or every article with a type of organization I don;'t think rhetorically sound.   DGG (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Well, I think the creator of this list is "listing everything of a type without caring about whether they are important." OK, let me ask you this: how is a list of people known by initial important? By looking at this list, what "knowledge" or "valuable information" can we possibly get? Sorry, but I fail to see the encyclopedic value of this page. To me, this list won't even work as everyone of us have initials. It doesn't stop every editor to put their name there. Chris!  c t 06:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability: You may have noticed that most people on the list are links to articles that are already in Wikipedia, so the people in the list are notable, because Wikipedia only keeps articles that are notable. You may also notice that people like J.R.R. Tolkien use the initials in the name of the article because Google gives that name the most hits, thats an objective measure. Are you arguing that J.R.R. Tolkien is NOT known by his initials? It reached Featured Article status with the initials in his name. Importance: It is no more important than any other article, importance is subjective. Ask a group of Wikipedians to come up with a list of the top 10 articles by importance, and see if any two come up with the same list. Then compare that to the the top 10 searches in Wikipedia and see if any match that. No article is inherently important, it is only important to the person that takes the time to read it, and leaves with new information, or a new understanding of something old. A ranking of countries by their GDP, may not be important, or may be important. It depends on the reader, and why they chose to read it, and what they take away from it. As we saw above, Colonel came away from reading the list with a new understanding that altered his comprehension of the television actor, Jay Silverheels, thats the power of information, it can change your understanding of a small part of the world. Everyone: You also argue that everyone is known by their initials, I am not, and I don't have an article in Wikipedia. I have never been known as R.A. Norton. Scroll through the index to Encyclopedia Britannica, or the index at FamousAmericans.net and see how few are known by initials. True, some use their middle initial, thats common, but thats not the topic here. Out of Control Growth: The list was started on April 9, 2003 and has not grown out of control. If it does get too big it can be split. We have categories such as birth year that contain tens of thousands of names, that take ages to go through 200 names at a time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Are these people notable because they are known by their initials, or are they notable people who just happen to be known by their initials? It seems you use the latter argument to claim notability/encyclopedicness of these lists. But these lists are hardly any different than List of people known by their haircolor or List of people known by whom they married (obviously indiscriminate directory-like articles). – sgeureka t•c 15:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment People aren't notable because they were born in a certain year, or because they attended a certain college, yet we categorize people by just such things. Years of birth, and years of death are the largest categories. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That just goes to show how subjective "discriminate" is. Haircolor may or may not be discriminate, and hair color can change with a trip to a salon, and hair darkens with age. Take left handedness vs right handedness, is that "discriminate" or "indiscriminate"? It seems arbitrary to list business people by that criteria, yet in baseball its very important. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Testimonial I've just been browsing the list of people known by initials and it's great stuff. There are huge numbers of notable entries and I wasn't able to find one missing - O.J., J.R., JFK, etc.  (Now I want to go back and check for W.G.Grace).  It mainly needs more text to explain how this usage arises.  Why, for example, are some Presidents, like Clinton and Nixon, not known by their initials when so many are?  Colonel Warden 18:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I just thought of one not on the list: M. F. K. Fisher. Its funny, I knew who she was, and it was a tip of the tongue phenomenum, "the cooking lady with the initials". If only there was some sort of list I could have consulted to help me ... --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Anyone that uses the term listcruft, I just ignore. It has no meaning, its a synonym for "I don't like it". If it violated policy they would quote the chapter and verse of what the violation was. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment are you withdrawing your previous position that the articles should be relisted seperately? Guest9999 11:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)]]

Regarding the various lists: Comment Actually with due respect, Wikidemo you are wrong. These lists (except the stage names and pseudonym) are clearly covered by WP:NOT. It reads "Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as person." A bunch of people's initials are loosely associated topics other than the fact that they are initials. You said they are "reasonably useful list" and "do no harm to Wikipedia." These are WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:NOHARM. Articles merely being useful or articles merely do no harm to us might not suitable for Wikipedia. And responding to another editor, no, people who are links to articles that are already in Wikipedia might not be notable because there is nothing stopping someone from creating articles. I still failed to see the notability/encyclopedicness of these lists. Chris! c t 00:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In general: Comment. These are clearly not covered by the WP:NOT#DIRECTORY policy.  A directory is an index of external information.  These lists are internal organizations of information we already have on Wikipedia.  They help people navigate.  They don't sell things, tell anybody where the fan club is located or who their agent is, etc.  It's an utter misunderstanding of the policy to call them that.  Similarly, these are not indiscriminate lists.  They are very specific lists of very precise information.  Again, there's a misunderstanding of the policy.  Note also that the various sister lists nominated here are each very different (even though they are all relating to names), and have different arguments for and against deletion.  Thus any decision made is quite vulnerable to a future re-listing and/or a DRV challenge.
 * Initials and middle name: Keep. Reasonably useful list, criteria for inclusion are simple, does no harm to Wikipedia to have it here.  Not a terribly interesting subject to me but it is to some.
 * Stage name and pseudonym: Strong keep. These two things, the alternate names that performers and public figures adopt, are notable subjects on their own, with relevant Wikipedia articles.  Probably there are many books and articles about the phenomena of stage names and pseudonyms.  It is very useful to organize the more interesting ones into a list.  The list does not have to be exhaustive or precise in order to be useful.  Simply having several dozen or more to peruse is an encyclopedic, illustrative thing.  It does zero harm to Wikipedia to have these lists here, and it's a bit of an embarrassment to the project if we keep tearing things down by deleting useful information like this.Wikidemo 19:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, anyone can create an article, but J.R.R. Tolkien was a featured article. Anyone can make up a pretend President of the United States, or a pretend King of ancient Egypt, yet we still have lists of them. I don't see that as a valid argument. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Featured articles don't mean anything regarding its notability. And since any editors can create anything here, having a list of possible fictional or non notable people is a problem. Chris!  c t 02:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Now your just arguing for the sake of arguing. That is the silliest statement I have heard yet. There is no higher degree of being vetted for notability and verifiability than being a featured article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How am I arguing for the sake of arguing? Notability is one of the reasons to delete this article. Chris!  c t 04:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment They are notable because they are already in Wikipedia, and have been vetted by our editors. If the subjects are not notable, bring them to AFD, and they will be red links. I think you are arguing they are not verifiable, that they are known by their initials, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I will state my position in a clearer way:
 * 1. This list contains non notable materials.
 * 2. This list contains unverifiable materials.
 * 3. This list has no encyclopedic value.
 * 4. This article violates WP:DIRECTORY and possibly WP:NOT. Chris!  c t 05:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is apparent that other editors think that these categories are neither too loose nor indiscriminate. Having perused the lists, I agree with them.  Colonel Warden 09:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep more effective than just a category as way to categorize and organize a topic readers and editors are interested in. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Listcruft/directory garbage. Doctorfluffy 22:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there an interest for this as a category too? It could be one of those categories that appears on the talk page purely for creating article counts, and other statistical analyses of biographies? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - These lists seems to be very detailed, interesting, and insightful. ~ Homologeo 00:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Since discussion seems to have drawn to a close I posted a request that the debate be closed here Guest9999 00:00, 31 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.