Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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 was Speedy delete g7, author request. NawlinWiki 01:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

People Known By One Name

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

List on non-notable topic. Composed entirely of original research. Chunky Rice 00:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as unmaintainable, unsourced, original research and probably non-notable. Who decided who is "usually referred to by only one name", as opposed to occasionally referred to by one name? Iain99 00:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was the original author of this article, which I created when I was very new to Wikipedia.  I thought this was deleted a long time ago, but apparently I created a duplicate that was deleted: List of People Known By One Name (Unambigiously).  Now that I have become a highly-active editor, I know this article is in violation of original research, loosely-associated list, and collection of internal links.  The list is also difficult to maintain.  It's sad to see one's own work go, but it's time to say good-bye.  Useight 00:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete CSD G7, author requests that it be deleted, seems to be the one. --Malcolmxl5 01:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete CSD G7. wikipediatrix 02:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete CSD G7. Oysterguitarist 02:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we use G7 when other people have since contributed to the article? I don't think it applies. -Chunky Rice 02:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, very true. But let's speedy it anyway ;) wikipediatrix 02:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think no one else has made any substantial changes to the author's text so it should be OK. --Malcolmxl5 03:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if a G7 is appropriate. I didn't start the AfD and there were other editors, however, "substantial" is questionable.  But maybe.  Useight 05:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - List of loosely associated topics WP:NOT Corpx 04:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this list could include up to 80% of the world, by the way it is named. Even if was notable people, there would be too many missed out. WP:NOT. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Johann Sebastian Delete Here I was, expecting a list with Prince, Madonna, Christo, Halston, etc.  Next time I hear about "Beethoven" I'll know that people don't meet Timmy Beethoven.  Mandsford 22:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mandsford. I thought it was a list of people who only use one name, which in that case might be valid.  Almost anyone is known by just one name in certain contexts.  Should Jimbo be on the list? --JayHenry 23:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment See Articles for deletion/List of people known by one name. The list survived AfD but was later variously redirected and is now a redirect to Stage name, although its history is still available here. Fg2 02:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. My goal in creating this list was to compile the names of people who, if I asked you, "Hey, do you know anything about Beethoven (or any other single name)?", it would be obvious who I meant without any specific context.  Obviously if I was already talking about football and I mentioned Montana, people would know I meant Joe Montana.  However, if it was just a stand alone question, "Do you know anything about Montana?", people would probably infer that I was talking about the state.  That's what I was going for.  Useight 02:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate that, but you can see our misgivings on this, I hope... the list could go on endlessly if you were to compile a list, essentially, of surnames that might be unique enough that it's likely that only one person is referred to. It's comparable to listing brand names that are so famous that we expect that most people use it in place of the original word, like Band-Aid or Q-Tip.  Even though people would, theoretically, be free to add and delete what's on there, it still comes down to a person's observations (which are referred to in Wikipediaspeak as "original research"), not to mention arguments (take Gandhi, for instance-- passive resistance man or aggressive authoritarian woman?) over uniqueness.  Generally, there are exceptions to every rule.  Don't let the experience deter you from contributing.  My own introduction to AfD was an article that I thought was "great" and, looking back on it, wasn't that good.  Mandsford 03:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand original research now that I've been around Wikipedia a long time. I was just trying to explain what my motive was for clarification.  Of course having my article deleted won't deter me from editing (I've lost Operations Technical Support Services and List of Nonhuman, Animated Disney Characters, as well).  All of these I originally created a long time ago before really getting into Wikipedia policy.  I have since created other articles that conformed and they have not been deleted.  I was new when I made this, and let's get rid of it.  Like I mentioned above this list is a violation of original research, loosely-associated list, and collection of internal links.  Not to mention it's unmaintainable and POV.  Speedy Delete per G7! I request deletion for the improvement of Wikipedia.  Useight 04:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Shaq per G7, as Usesight requests deletion. Delete either way.  Giggy  Talk 07:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, the list is needless, unmaintainable, subject to POV, and would eventually include every classic Greek person. J I P  | Talk 09:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete I've tagged it for a G7 per author's request. And note to the closing admin: I think this redirect can be deleted too, List of People Known by One Name (Unambiguously). Spellcast 00:39, 8 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.