Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of personal names that contain numbers


 * 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.  Singu larity  02:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

List of personal names that contain numbers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is a big mish-mash of people who actually have numbers in their names, people who have names that resemble numbers, and fictional characters with numbers in their names. Also, take note that of the names that actually include numbers, many are stage names. In addition, many of the actual legal names that include numbers follow naming conventions in which number-based names are common. Even the fictional characters’ names split up into actual names that are numbers, names that are based on/resemble numbers, and aliases/serial numbers. In short, the list combines at least five (possibly eight, if you want to get technical) separate categories into a single page. This does absolutely nothing to organize the information, as there is no consistency or continuity, and combines so many smaller yet distinctly different topics that it is very confusing, and muddles up navigation rather than enhancing it.

The smaller categories enough probably do not meet the criteria to have their own lists, but combining them into one all-inclusive list is even worse. I don’t think it’s a bad idea to have an article about numbers in personal names as it relates to naming conventions and the like, but that is material for a standard article, not a list. Calgary 00:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as listcruft and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information.--Jersey Devil 00:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOT --H| H irohisat  Talk 01:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as listcruft per nom. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - What a bizarre list. Pointless too, sadly.   IC H OR  } mos q  uito {  01:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - pointless, as the above states. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no need to have it. Oysterguitarist 03:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete More fun to write than it was to read. There actually are people who have sought to legally change their names to something with a number in it, but this list makes the common "pop culture" mistake of trying to include everything-- Benedict XVI, KRS-One, people named Septimus, etc.  Sorry, I vote to "deep six" this one, 23 Skidoo.  Mandsford 03:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - While culturally interesting in some ways, it can never hope to be a complete and useful list. - Tangotango (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivial list/loosely associated items Corpx 07:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete NHRHS2010  Talk  20:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It does have pop cultural value. Some poor guy has put a lot of work into it. It does no harm...leave it for people who like to kinky with numbers. QueenAdelaide 06:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any pop culture value. The list isarbitrary, all-inclusive and disorganized to the extent that even if someone interested in popular culture were to visit the article, I doubt thay'd be able to find much. Calgary 21:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This does not have value as pop culture or as anything else, being about as meaningless as an article can get. Names beginning with A... is the classic example of a truly indiscriminate list, and this comes very close to it. Possibly the general section, is done in a more sophisticated way, is worth preserving in other articles--but not as a list. The real pop culture articles with value show that value much more clearly in  comparison with this. In a way, it's good that someone went to the trouble of doing a bad example.  DGG (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article, while potentially interesting, is just a collection of information. bwowen talk•contribs• review me please! 12:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft and not necessary encyclopedic here--JForget 00:11, 21 August 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.