Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mononymous persons


 * 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. --Leivick (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mononymous persons

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article provides false information, lacks notability, is unverifiable, original research, and is little more than a poorly expanded definition which belongs in a dictionary Jdrewitt (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Could you expand a bit on what you mean by false information? Thank you! LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What I mean is, the article is defining mononymous persons as somebody referred to only by their first a single name. However, for many of the examples of the famous people given whom are apparently mononymous persons clearly are not and are regularly referred to by both or all their names.  Its like saying somebody is mononymous because their friends refer to them by their first name. Jdrewitt (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not what is described in the article. You might start by reading it.  Nihil novi (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read the article, before I put it up for deletion, and believe my points are valid, this article is not a worthy encyclopedic entry. You may change the names in the list all you like to make them mononyms but it doesn't get around the fact that they are not true mononymous people. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the article at that time was describing Galileo Galilei as a mononymous person which is a complete fallacy, not only do most people refer to this prominent scientist as Galileo Galilei but that was also precisely how he used to sign his work. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sources are reliable but irrelevant to this topic. See WP:SYNTH. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 20:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well referenced with reliable sources which are relevant to the topic at hand. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources are not reliable! Most of the inline citations are simply footnotes with no further references. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - After reading Jdrewitt's explanation, I see the point. In the old days, everyone was Mr, Ms, or Mrs, but today it is very common to refer to people by last name only.  This list could get unbelievably long by this common practice, through referencing, even if people never use a single name reference themselves.  I agree that this has crossed into WP:SYNTH. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not what is described in the article. Nihil novi (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep reasonable topic (and probably notable) but, requires massive cleanup and I'd suggest removing most of the examples making sure to only provide those that are 100% factual with no possibility of "interpretation". The examples should only include people that only used one-name and not include people like Hillary Clinton whom if you said Hillary to people wouldn't be guaranteed to be the first person they thought of. Those improvements can be discussed on the talkpage. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the practice of certain famous people (e.g. Rembrandt, Pele, Madonna, Bjork, Prince, Hildegarde, Voltaire) to be known by one name only is distinctive and well-reference. Certainly notable, and requiring a bit of copyediting and cleanup is not grounds for deletion. I have restructured the article somewhat, hopefully it reads better now. Neıl    ☄   09:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article still reads simply as an expansion on a dictionary definition and the information in this expansion, e.g in the section History doesn't appear to have enough notoriety to warrant its own article. The practice of famous people using single names is already dealt with in the article List of people known by one name and hence wikipedia does not need another article on the same subject. Jdrewitt (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A list and an article are, by definition, not the same thing. Neıl   ☄   11:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Except there really isn't much more you can say about the subject of this article that can't be dealt with in an expanded list. Jdrewitt (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete the idea is trivial, coincident fluff and seems un-encyclopedic....creating a new expanded List of people known by one name might be a solution. Modernist (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Such articles exist already, e.g. List of stage names or more for mononyms List of one-word stage names. Jdrewitt (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes and expansion of the list is preferable to both the superfluous category and article...Modernist (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject is notable, article is encyclopedic.  — Athaenara  ✉  21:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - see also Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_12. Neıl   ☄   11:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Somebody has gone to a lot of work to put the page together, and it is information that isn't readily available elsewhere. I think this is a good example of the sort of thing that Wikipedia makes possible. Raymondwinn (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the very fact that this information isn't readily available elesewhere only goes to reinforce the argument that this article is original research. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not being readily available elsewhere is not the same as original research. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is when there are no reliable or relevant sources to back up the claims. Jdrewitt (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What? You don't need a citation to prove the word "Apple" begins with an "A", or that water is wet. Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   11:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keeping it simple, my point was this article contains no relevant reliable sources to back up its claims and is thus unencyclopedic. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jdrewitt, your arguments are not that convincing. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 08:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not the only editor who has expressed concerns about this article and category. The fact is the sources are either irrelevant to the article or not reliable.  There is no other way to word this to make it more convincing without going through each source individually, which quite frankly you can do yourself.  I am not intending to convince anyone of anything, I am simply expressing my opinion, which is by no means unique, and get attacked for it.  I will thus leave this discussion. Jdrewitt (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jdrewitt, I'm not attacking you. I'm only suggesting that your arguments are not that convincing. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 14:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Many well known people are known by one name. The article passes WP:N and the sources are reliable. The article is encyclopedic. It also appeared on the DYK column on July 11, 2008. It is an interesting article and information provided by this article isn’t readily available elsewhere. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 08:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with Modernist that this stuff probably isn't of earth-shattering importance. And if I were King of Wikipedia, we'd have a "WP:PROFUNDITY" policy or guideline. But alas, we must contend with WP:N, and I see no compelling case that the article fails to meet it. Nominator's claim that the material is "unverifiable" is ambiguous. Did nominator try to verify, but not succeed? Or is there something about the concept that is inherently immune to our attempts at verification? I still don't see where the "false information" is. Besides, if it can't be proven true (i.e., verified), then how can it be proven false? (In other words, if something is false, then any claims that it is also "unverifiable" are superfluous.) And I absolutely don't see how this is a WP:NAD. This is about a concept and its history, not about a word per se. And even if it were, it wouldn't necessarily be a WP:NAD, because some words, such as truthiness, are also encyclopedic (per WP:NOT). The article might not be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but the argument for deletion doesn't seem to cut it (no pun intended). Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm inclined to characterize this nomination as frivolous, however, in the spirit of amicability and assuming good faith I think it will suffice to consider poor judgment to be the cause of this nomination. __meco (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2008 (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.