Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people known by one name


 * 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 of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 04:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

List of people known by one name
It has no use (unsigned comment by 85.210.57.226)
 * Weak keep. Looks like some real effort went into creating this. Durova 02:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - listcruft. PJM 02:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep slightly useful, though it needs a bit of a purge. There's a difference between Cher, who is pretty much always called just Cher, and Elvis Presley or Whoopi Goldberg, whose last names are occasionally omitted just for brevity's sake. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep has use. --TheMidnighters 02:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not useless. Lots of effort went into making this page. DarthVader 02:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting lists make Wikipedia useful. Ashibaka (tock) 03:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. There's something fascinating about a list that includes Cher and Socrates.  Jtmichcock 03:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename it to List of people since 1900 known by one name (or some such) since in antiquity, almost everyone had only one name. Aesop isn't on there, just to mention the first name I thought of. Otherwise, it'll be a List of all people who ever lived in ancient times plus a few modern weirdos &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Lots of people before 1900 were known by more than one name. Agreed that it is more unusual and noteworthy now than it used to be, but no need to change the list, IMO. Turnstep 03:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft, agreed. NSLE  ( 讨论 + extra ) 05:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup: Shaq and Elvis don't belong. Nenê and Bono do. And who added Robert Parish, wtf? The list is encyclopedic, but if the "average joe" knows what somebody's full given name is, he/she doesn't belong on the list. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  05:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Almanac style lists are a proper part of wikipedia. CalJW 06:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep An article should only be deleted if it is a completely unqualified waste of bandwidth. This article is hardly a waste. It provides an interesting look at reactions against the two-name system most cultures prefer. I find any discussion for deletion to be distasteful.
 * Weak keep and cleanup per Andrew Lenahan, Wahoofive and Freakofnurture. Nobody who commonly uses both a first name and a surname should be on this list, nor should ancient people who predated surnames -- particularly those who are commonly known by an appellation of more than one word, like Attila the Hun or Judas Iscariot. --Metropolitan90 07:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete or total rewrite ultimately unverifiable - at the moment it is the creator and other's anecdotal impressions that form the list. And it is full of inconsistancies and errors. Nicknames (such as Becks) of people who are quite commonly refered to by their full name must go. Boz is much better known a Charles Dickens! I think most people do know that Fidel is better known as Fidel Castro ditto for Osama (who is more often, in my experience, refered to as bin Laden! Why do we have Gandhi but exclude Mozart and Shakesphere?  We have Solomon, shall we also have every other monarch? Every second figure in antiquity, and just about every figure in the Bible should be included under current criteria. If this survives, it must delete all ancient names (as above), and include only names where the full name is virtually unknown or never used e.g. Bono, Maddona, - with a heavy prejudice against surnames, and nicknames of people whoose real name is widely used. --Doc ask? 09:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep useful list. But tighten inclusion criteria and cleanup. - Mgm|(talk) 09:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree with Doc, above. The need for a 100% rewrite makes me wonder what it is that we're keeping.  Geogre 10:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why would it be a 100% rewrite? Surely you can look at the list and see names there that should remain. Factitious 21:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete List enthusiasts should note Doc's well-made points. This is seriously flawed. Eusebeus 12:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable, overly anecdotal and unmaintainable. No hope of ever being complete. Marskell 13:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing that tightening of inclusion criteria can't fix. - Mgm|(talk) 13:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need to change both inclusion standards and the title. But I think a lot could be salvaged. Keep and cleanup for now. I think it would be helpful if those of us who think it should be kept began hashing out better inclusion criteria on the talk page. I'll start. Jacqui ★ 16:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Doc glasgow's reasoning is powerful. I think the list (as a concept) has merit, but the list itself needs a lot of work. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but tighten criteria. I'd limit it to people who have lived since the year 1000 CE, as this list could theoretically include almost every Mediterranean-area figure from antiquity. Andrew Levine 17:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep with stronger criteria. Should include only situations where it is unusual to be known by one name, given the time and culture.  Rules out most traditional monarchs, religious figures, and those modern nations where one name is the norm. CarbonCopy 18:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep w/ strict criteria per above. Youngamerican 20:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Doc's suggestions for improvement. Factitious 21:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, assuming those arguing for cleanup are actually going to put in the required work; in its present state it should be deleted, as Doc argues, but a cleaner list under this title would be useful and interesting. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 21:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs some cleanup, but it's an interesting list. I like it. Jtrost 23:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Who said Elvis doesn't belong?! Of course he does. Turnstep 03:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I did. Because everybody knows Elvis' last name is Stojko .  Seriously, for this to be a useful list, criteria for inclusion must be more than just the presence of a redirect such as "Elvis" &rarr; "Elvis Presley" which does in fact exist. Just being the most famous person with a certain uncommon first or last name is not enough. On the other hand, significantly fewer people know the surnames of Cher or Madonna, or who the heck Paul David Hewson is. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  04:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * keep useful after cleanup--Kalsermar 17:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --TimPope 21:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Nickj (t) 14:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete in present form as per Doc and Haeleth, although I confess I've already been sucked into an edit to fix something. The list now contains all sorts of nicknames, which makes it less useful and more arbitrary and unmaintainable. While Cher and Sting obviously fit, Dubya and Slobo do not; George W. Bush is not "known as" Dubya, it's just a minor nickname bestowed by others. Same with Slobo. (Actually, a good rule of thumb is whether the single-name link is an article or a redirect; for example, Slobo by itself links to some comic character.) This remains a probably unsalvageable mess. MCB 19:03, 26 November 2005 (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.