Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norma (female 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 was   Keep (non-admin closure), Snowball clause; everyone, including nominator, happy to close as keep. Ros0709 (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Norma (female name)

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

Primarily a linkfarm with some unreferenced and speculative commentary. Rewrite or delete. Ros0709 (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep--I'd expect to find an article with this name on Wikipedia; it's notable and at least moderately encyclopaedic. Also, the cited grounds for deletion seem weak to me.  "Unreferenced" is not grounds for deletion, it's grounds to go and find references. "Some speculative content" is not grounds for deletion, it's grounds for editing.  WP:POTENTIAL and WP:DEMOLISH appear to apply here.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  12:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. One source looks reliable. I removed the rest. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait one second-before whosoever dissolves this Norma article, please consider that articles on Wikipedia require source and time-these sections don't always blossom overnight, so when proper sources/information are found, this section can become an official article. Neurotic heart (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We should merge this into Norman as the name, not delete the Norma because Norma is important with extremely urgent history. So rather than almost completely deleting Norma (female name) can you please merge the article to the area of Norman (name)? Neurotic heart (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neurotic: You've gotta chillax. Nothing is getting deleted and nothing is getting merged. The article will be kept as is. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep not seeing the linkfarm and "unreferenced" is not a ground for deletion. JuJube (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been improved and the linkfarm has gone. The "origin of" section could, and still can, be read in two ways - one of which implies it is unresearched and some vague supposition, or the other which is that the origin is really not known. I read the former when nominating but it seems clear to me now it is intended to be the latter; with that in mind it would be nice to clarify the text a bit. The subject is, of course, not at issue. The nomination was always weak; at issue was whether this was original research. But clearly this article is not going to be deleted and as all the !votes have been "keep" this can legitimately be closed as such by a non-admin. Ros0709 (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP. This is similar in importance and style to the Norman (name) article, albeit that article has been around longer and has grown. Over time, we should expect this article to similarly grow. Truthanado (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * keep we have disambig articles about most names, and usually slightly similar male and female names are not merged. Sticky Parkin 00:53, 8 September 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.