Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverie (given 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 delete. Despite the length of this AfD, only one person wants to keep these articles, and their excessive verbiage merits discounting in view of WP:BLUDGEON. (All right, one other person wants to keep Amora (given name), but that doesn't change the consensus either.)  Sandstein   16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverie (given name)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No evidence of any notability for this given name. Fram (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Also nominated for same reason:
 * Dream (given name)
 * Navy (given name)
 * Amora (given name)


 * Delete all] -- not notable. Three of these articles have illustrations that do not show people with the given names.  Athel cb (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep only Amora (given name), which contains links of two people with the name. Standalone name lists allowed per MOS:DABNAME and consistent with WP:APO/S. Delete the rest if no standalone bios for those names identified, as those pages don't meet WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, Amora didn't contain any links to people with that name at the time of creation. Thank you for adding those! Fram (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Didn't mean to imply that you ignored them before.—Bagumba (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The relevance of Amora and Navy and Dream is their recent inclusion on the U.S. popularity charts. Reverie has increased in usage. I have been attempting to create or expand articles for names listed on different popularity charts as I come across them. These articles were never originally intended to only include people with a certain name either and I don’t think notability depends on it. They are about the history and usage of a particular name. The images are intended to illustrate the article. The image with Navy is of two children wearing navy blue clothing and one a sailor suit. The source says the name comes from either the color or the Navy. Reverie is the title of the image included, etc. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * These articles were never originally intended to only include people with a certain name either and I don’t think notability depends on it.: No. Namelists can be treated as a WP:SETINDEX if we have articles of multiple people with that name. Otherwise, pure name articles are expected to meet WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since everyone appears to have abandoned discussions on this page over the last few days and have not responded to the improvements I made, I will mention again that all four of these articles now either meet WP:GNG or WP:SETINDEX mentioned above by User:Bagumba. I provided citations for articles in mainstream papers or TV networks and published name dictionaries as well as blogs and lifestyle sites that give more extensive coverage of the specific names. For Reverie (given name) I also created cited articles about two notable people with the name. At least one of the articles, Eloisa Reverie Vezzosi, has survived two attempts to delete it after two separate editors agreed she is notable and the citations are solid. Therefore, Reverie (given name) meets WP:SETINDEX as well, though I think it also meets WP:GNG. I again say the articles deserve to be kept and the deletion discussion should now be closed. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Comment Thanks for the ping. I still stand by my earlier !vote. It might not have been your intention, but the many refereces added come off as a WP:REFBOMB of trivial mentions of the respective names. WP:GNG requires signficant coverage.  Per the guideline WP:WHYN:  Those other pages remain a stub, looking at the new sources that I have online access to, there's no indication that the page content can ever grow.—Bagumba (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I still stand by my comments earlier that the naming blogs with extensive commentary on these names should qualify as references for general notability, as do the newspaper and magazine articles that have been cited that are evidence of broad commentary/coverage. The articles Eloisa Reverie Vezzosi and Reverie Love can likely be expanded with more time based on the news articles I found. Some about Vezzosi are in Italian, which I don’t speak, but she appears to be a performance artist who has been covered in different media. I’m not particularly interested in Love or underground hip hop but she’s had coverage and someone out there probably is more interested than me and will work on that article. I’ll say again that I am not a deletionist. I think Wikipedia has been too quick in general to delete cited articles that are of interest or could be expanded upon. These are just four of them and they are clearly of interest to a lot of people based on the references I listed. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have also just added additional See also to the Dream article referring to film maker Dream Hampton and two others who use it as a pseudonym or stage name and added additional description based on the name dictionary and a news article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your one-line bio creation doesn't seem too credible at Articles for deletion/Reverie Love. Adding You Tube handles and people with a "dream" syllable in their name seems disingenous.—Bagumba (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Reverie Love is probably the weaker of the two articles and could be deleted, though I found media interviews and reviews that had been listed and looked notable to me, though I’m hardly an expert or interested in hip-hop. The Eloisa Reverie Vezzosi article can probably be expanded by people who speak Italian and can do more than run them through Google Translate. There is additional independent coverage on what appears to be a notable and interesting personality. As for the Dream article, Dream Hampton is a notable figure and Dream appears to be her name from birth. I didn’t see any disambiguation page listing The-Dream or Dream (YouTuber) so includes them as well though they might better be listed under a See Also at the bottom of the page. I somewhat question the quality of the Dream (YouTuber) article but it’s not for me to judge. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The inclusion on the popularity charts is notable. Navy currently ranks No. 452 on the U.S. popularity chart and was mentioned as having jumped up 258 slots on the chart from the previous year. Dream was ranked No. 351 on the chart and has similarly increased in use etc. In some of these articles I tried to avoid giving specific rank and numbers because it dates the article and they will have to be continuously updated from year to year. The notability for most of these is that they are names that dramatically increased in use and will probably continue to do so, often because of some celebrity influence — I.e., Dream is influenced by the child of Rob Kardashian and Reverie by the daughter of Rebecca Woolf. Neither of the specific children are notable themselves and probably should not be mentioned in the name articles for privacy’s sake but the celebrity influence is mentioned in the references cited as a reason for the increase on the charts.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added additional references to the Dream and Navy article to establish notability. More certainly exist. All of these names have been mentioned in multiple articles as having increased in popularity, influenced by celebrities, etc. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at your sources for "Navy", I see the primary source ssa.gov (statistics), and then Nameberry.com, not much readson to see it as a reliable source, and Appellation Mountain is just a blog apparently. So no reliable sources, like books or newspaper aricles, about these given names and their popularity? Fram (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I’d argue that naming blogs are acceptable sources for very recently popular names but I just added the following as well: Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * While Time obviously is a reliable source, that is the perfect example of what is known as a "passing mention", the use of a name (in this case "Navy" as an example, without further explanation. Fram (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And the naming blogs are certainly indicative as supporting evidence that these names are of note and are increasing in popularity and are being talked about, etc. I’m not a “deletionist.” I think names that are on a popularity chart are of note to an encyclopedia and people are probably going to want to know what they mean and where they came from and want to look them up. These are all notable names. If you want more references, I’ll certainly dig them up but the ones that are there already ought to be sufficient. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

14:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)14:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)14:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)~


 * This is a published reference that contains the same information in the entry for the name as on the above listed Nameberry site that is run by the same authors. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For which names? That source is from 2007, and names like Reverie or Dream weren't on the radar back then. Fram (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Navy above. It refers to the naming of a daughter of R&B singer Nivea, just as the website dictionary does. I think that child was born in 2005. I also have additional references to all of those articles from blogs, news articles, etc. For Navy, there are articles that reference the naming of the daughter of country singer Jason Aldean and why he and his wife chose the name and others citing the birth and naming last year of the daughter of the blogger Arielle Charnas as an influence on the name. For the article Reverie there are citations for multiple blog entries over the past 11 years, one mentioning that the name increased in use from 5 in 2010 to 61 in 2020 after the birth of the author and blogger Rebecca Woolf’s daughter. Also included are links to Woolf’s 2011 blog entry describing the naming of her twins and to a 2014 HGTV.com feature describing how “well known blogger” Woolf created a nursery for her twins that was as “Bohemian as their names.” I added additional citations to the article Amora with separate articles from February listing it among other names that mean “love.” I also added citations for the article for Dream with articles citing the influence of names chosen by the various members of the Kardashian family, including of Rob Kardashian’s daughter. I consider the naming blogs acceptable contemporary references for these articles about very recently popular names, especially as supporting evidence for the Social Security Association stats that are also listed. In the case of the Nameberry site, the majority of the information for the online dictionary comes from previously published books by the authors who own the site, updated with contemporary information they add. Some of the other sites are blogs run by other published authors. Other articles cited are from online lifestyle sites or online magazines, etc. In any case, there are now many references for these two or three paragraph articles all supporting their notability. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"In any case, there are now many references for these two or three paragraph articles all supporting their notability." Looking at Reverie, I can't access the HGTV article (not available from Europe), but none of the others are the kind of reliable sources that actually give notability (either primary sources, or blogs). Fram (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Entries in published name dictionaries, articles that mention a name has increased in popularity due to its use by a certain celebrity, articles describing a certain person as notable, etc., are not considered notable? I can’t agree. The blogs are all copyrighted and in many instances employ writers who conduct interviews and publish articles on the sites with commentary on notable names and editors who edit the content. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Reverie (given name) has no "Entries in published name dictionaries" (even if it had, it would depend on how significant the entry was, such books have thousands of very short entries usually), it has no "articles that mention a name has increased in popularity due to its use by a certain celebrity", and "articles describing a certain person as notable" don't give notability to a given name. "The blogs are all copyrighted" is meaningless, if I or you start a blog tomorrow everything we write on it is copyrighted as well. Something like this has no indication at all why it would be a reliable source. Fram (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All of the others do and I stand by what I said earlier regarding why I consider the naming blogs notable and why Reverie is of note too. If anything they are probably more trustworthy because the people writing them are experts on the subject matter. All of the articles should be kept. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "All of the others do"? Right, so I checked the second one, Dream (given name), and no, it has again no "Entries in published name dictionaries", it has an ultro-short mention of Dream in an article, and an even shorter one here on a sports radio website (no idea why they post an artucle on this subject, very weird). Even if copyright wasn't an issue and you were allowed to post the relevant bits of these two articles in full, you would still have a very, very short article. Anyway, I'm done chasing after your changes and checking your claims against reality, I'll let others decide on this. Fram (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The article was written after the release of a report on naming trends from the previous year, which is considered of interest by various media outlets. Some people consider the topic trivial but others obviously find it notable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone still interested in this discussion might note that I have added multiple additional references, including a published name reference by Laura Wattenberg that mentions all four of these names. Wattenberg is often quoted as a name expert in mainstream media articles as an expert on naming trends. The blogs and content/lifestyle sites referenced can be viewed as additional supporting evidence. I also have created an article Reverie Love with supporting references.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Bookworm has just added "a published name reference by Laura Wattenberg that mentions all four of these names. Wattenberg is often quoted as a name expert in mainstream media articles as an expert on naming trends." as apparently the clincher to establish notability for these names. So, fine, I checked: for Reverie, the "full" info is "Reverie". That's it, nothing more. The index indicates that it can be found on page 394, and that page has a long list of names which includes Reverie (and Navy and presumably the other two). It adds no information and doesn't help at establishing notability, but it sounds good if you can say that you have added a book of course. As the other sources are just "additional supporting evidence", we are still left with nothing. Can someone else please educate Bookworm on what is acceptable sourcing and what actually establishes notability? Fram (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Reverie is included in a list of names in the Wattenberg book where the significance is the meaning of the vocabulary word. The other names in the book are mentioned under similar lists. Dream is listed under a dictionary entry in the book that lists the Kardashian connection, etc. It’s a popular reference book on naming trends and suggestIons for parents, not a scholarly treatise, but Wattenberg is frequently interviewed as an expert as are the authors who run Nameberry, for that matter. I also listed an assortment of articles as references under the Dream, Navy, and Amora articles. Dream and/or Navy are referenced in the articles on CNN and others as being among the fastest rising names of the year, as noted in the Social Security Administration report on rising names. The references are cited. I guess anyone interested can judge for themselves. I’ve explained above and at length why I believe these are notable names and why the blogs ought to qualify as acceptable sources for notability. I continue to disagree with Fram. When I searched for people by the name Reverie, I found fictional references and a rap performer who uses it as a stage name, who I decided was clearly notable enough for a Wikipedia article based on the news coverage of her. I hope that stub article on Reverie Love will be expanded upon by people who are more knowledgeable about underground hip-hop than I am. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "the significance is the meaning of the vocabulary word."? Fram (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Wattenberg compiled a list of recently coined “word names” that are in use and make a statement because of the meaning. The author and others note this is a naming trend particularly in the United States in the past few years and is evident on the popularity charts. Destiny is another example. With Reverie, usage increased from five in 2010 to 61 in 2020 (60 uses last year.) The blogger is considered the main influence but I’d speculate that the rapper probably has as well since she has been performing during the same time frame. I found a couple of news articles mentioning non-notable children called Reverie during my hunt for sources. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, Wattenberg included the name in a long list, nothing further: everything else comes from blogs and primary sources or is your original research. Fram (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would strongly object to your claim that I conducted “original research.” In writing these articles, I searched for and provided multiple citations for a few stub articles about names that multiple authors, bloggers or journalists all considered notable enough to comment on and write about after noting that they have risen in usage. Three of the name articles you want to delete are mentioned by others as notable because they are now on the popularity chart in the U.S. and continuing to rise in use; the fourth is mentioned as noteworthy as having dramatically increased in use over the past 12 years. Original research would mean I saw the stats and wrote the articles based on my own interpretation, which I did not. The comments I made here about why a name is popular are not in the articles, which just give statistics and assertions made by authors, bloggers, content writers or reporters, etc. And I’ve said above why these should be considered notable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment to Fram's request, this is an ongoing fingers-in-the-ears issue with this user about what constitutes reliable sources, and merely being a website or a published book doesn't confer reliability to the sources or notability to their contents, see recent discussion at Talk:Maya (given name) where the use of such sources was explicitly called out as not reliable and Bookworm just bludgeoned by the noticeboard precedents. JesseRafe (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do disagree about what constitutes notability and reliable sources. I don’t think that necessarily constitutes a “fingers-in-the-ears” issue so much as an ongoing philosophical disagreement. As can be seen with the articles and the ongoing content dispute at Maya, which has yet to be resolved, I have improved upon all of the articles mentioned here with additional citations that I do think demonstrate that they are notable and should be kept. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete I think the three names with no bios linked should be deleted. Amora, serving as a DAB page for people with that name, can stay. Rockphed (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Dream (given name) and Reverie (given name) both now also include bios linked. Dream (given name) includes a link to the article Dream Hampton as well as to The-Dream and Dream (YouTuber), none of which I wrote. Reverie (given name) includes links to the articles Eloisa Reverie Vezzosi and Reverie Love, both of which I did write. However, both can be expanded upon and, at least two other editors also apparently considered the references in Eloisa Reverie Vezzosi notable enough to halt speedy deletion attempts. Three of the four meet WP:SETINDEX]  But as I said above, I also believe all four meet general notability guidelines under WP:GNG. Other editors above have expressed some objections to listing blogs such as Nameberry or Appellation Mountain as sources. I noted above that Nameberry contains material previously published (by independent publishers) in multiple books by the authors who run the site. They are frequently interviewed by journalists and quoted as experts on naming trends in some of the news articles also cited. Author Wattenberg, whose book I also cited, has also been interviewed as an expert on naming trends in mainstream media. The article on what qualifies as a reliable source at Wikipedia does note that self published material can qualify if it is by an expert in the field.  I originally wrote three of the four articles because the names had been mentioned by the U.S. Social Security Administration on its list of fastest rising names for 2021 on its popularity chart. The fourth, Reverie (given name), had been mentioned in connection with Dream (given name). The articles are all sourced. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have also added a link to the bio for actress Dreama Walker to the article Dream (given name) along with a citation from a published source that supports including it as a variant of the name. Dreama (given name) may merit its own article but I would probably make it a redirect to the Dream article since Dream is a far more commonly used name. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would urge you to remove that link and false claim. Dreama (and many variants thereof, like dreamah, dreamar, ...) are given with the meaning "dreamer", and with no indication that it is a variant of "Dream". You can find it between "Dotty" and "Drew". The given name "Dream" has no separate entry in this book of 100,000+ names, indicating just how incredibly notable it is... Fram (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisted for additional input. As it stands, there is an absence of consensus, and I suspect that some unexplored alternative solution is available. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412  T 06:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume we can agree that dream and dreamer are etymologically related words. Dreama has been around as a name since the early to mid 20th century, per the two additional sources I added from the Wattenberg book and the Appellation Mountain blog. Dream is a more recent coinage and has only recently been used in large numbers, which explains why it isn’t included in the Lansky book. However, the film maker Dream Hampton was born in 1972. Dreama also appears in the American Social Security stats, albeit in low numbers. There was a prostitute character on an episode of the show CSI who says her father named her from the song Dream a Little Dream of Me. Should we decide that the name Dreama warrants its own article instead of being included in the Dream (given name) article, that could be mentioned. I probably would not create a stand alone article on a name that is pretty rare. I would be comfortable saying Dream and Dreama are related names with the references I cited.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please no, not more poorly sourced (or incorrectly represented sources) articles on non-notable names. Fram (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Dream and dreamer are related words; Dreama is mentioned in a blog entry at Appellation Mountain under the entry for Dream; Dreama is also included in a list entitled “Mid-Century America” and along with Dream in a list entitled “Modern Meanings” in the Wattenberg book. They have hardly been misrepresented. The two books cited are both published references. I have also included links to bios in the article for people with these names, which would meet the criteria under WP:SETINDEX. Dreama might merit a separate article or list due to the actress Dreama Walker. There do appear to be other actresses called Dreama based on cast lists referenced in Wiki articles  but I didn’t find any other articles with the quick search I did. I still say these names are generally notable also because they now appear among the top 1,000 names in the U.S. or have been mentioned as rising in use. The name  Dreama does not meet that criteria. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment. Please note that I have added some additional material to the Dream (given name) article today and done a bit of editing/cleanup. I added a citation for an archived interview with Dream Hampton, who said her father named her after the I Have a Dream speech by Martin Luther King Jr. I also moved the bio links for The-Dream, Dream (YouTuber), and Dreama Walker under a See Also heading. I stand by what I said earlier above regarding why all of these articles meet WP:SETINDEX and WP:GNG as well. I have added references and made substantial improvements to all of these articles since they were originally listed in an attempt to address some of the concerns that were expressed, though I also think the original versions were adequately cited. These articles are notable and should be kept.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that I've seen the later comments, and my !vote above still stands. Also, a page created after (and perhaps in response) to this AfD, Reverie Love, was deleted per Articles for deletion/Reverie Love—Bagumba (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As does mine, for all of the reasons I cited above. I have done an enormous amount of work on these articles, which I think were all fine to begin with and were of general notability because they are either listed among the top 1,000 names on the U.S. Social Security Administration site or noted as rising in use. Three of the four include links to bios of people by the name. The link to the article on Eloisa Reverie Vezzosi still stands and that one can be expanded. Multiple citations have been included for all of them to news articles, books, blogs by experts etc. I have already said why I consider the blogs to be acceptable sources. Self published works are listed as acceptable by experts in the field. Several of these authors have been interviewed and quoted as experts on numerous occasions over the last decade by the New York Times or other papers. Much of the material on the Nameberry site was previously published in one of their independently published books. All four of these articles should be kept.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As does mine...: Yes, your 28 May 2022 comment is right above, which is below all your other comments. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I can see consensus to keep Amora, but not the other two names. More input is required to clarify this. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: One more relist before I am comfortable closing as no consenus Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero  Parlez Moi 08:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment. It’s time to close this discussion as no consensus. To quote the relevant guideline: “Relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure … Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice.” Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems that there is consensus from all but one !voter to delete eveything besides Amora (given name). I'd be interested in how you are interpreting it as no consensus. (Also, a third relisting is quite rare.) Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Bagumba voted to keep Amora based on the addition of links to bios of other people with the same name to that article. Since that vote, I did extensive work on all four of the other articles. Both Dream and Reverie also now include links to other bios to people with the same names, just as Amora does. They meet the same WP:SETINDEX criteria that Amora does. All four of them are referenced. I also still say the claim to WP:GNG is met by media coverage of their inclusion on the top 1,000 list of most popular names and/or their recent increase in popularity. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all The sourcing is almost invariably fluff like "top x baby names", "top trending names", blogs or government databases, with little if any in-depth discussion of the names themselves or any demonstration of long-term significance. I'll refer to the nominator's comments above for a more detailed description. Amora can be deleted too, there's already a dab page for the term itself and there's no need to split it for the sake of two people. Avilich (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all Per nom and Avilich.4meter4 (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all As per Avilich. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I’ll say again that three of the four articles include links to biographies of people with the name, which meets WP:SETINDEX and they are formatted exactly like dozens of existing name articles on Wikipedia. I think they are notable for other reasons as well. The “fluff” references referred to include published references and news articles as well as blogs by people who have been quoted as experts on the topic in the New York Times and other publications. Self-published articles can be acceptable references when they are by experts. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * SETINDEX doesn't mean GNG, NLIST or other guidelines don't have to be met, and GNG is what matters here. Picking sources at random, one finds such things as "The Baby Name Wizard: A Magical Method for Finding the Perfect Name for Your Baby"; "100,000+ Baby Names name book"; names databases (nameberry.com, government websites); a blog titled "Bewitching Names: Naming Enthusiasm from a Wiccan Perspective". Whatever reliable sources may be found all contain passing mentions only. None of this comes close to meeting GNG. If there are any publications by "experts" (whatever that means with regard to names) here I must've missed them, but caution is urged even for expert SPS sources. Avilich (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also several of those listed on "Dream" have it as pseudonyms, and so don't qualify for a SETLIST other than a dab page. Avilich (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Laura Wattenberg and the authors of the Nameberry site have both been quoted as experts on naming trends in various articles in assorted publications. The books that were cited by them were published by independent publishers. Blogs and newspaper articles with commentary on individual names and commenting on the data from government databases does go to the general notability of all of these names. These are also no different than any number of already existing name articles on Wikipedia. This conversation has dragged out for over a month. I’ve improved the articles to try to address concerns but I have not changed my position. They are all notable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Their work consists of names in general. Their coverage of individual names will most likely be insufficient for GNG to be met for each of them, as it is here. Avilich (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Each of these articles includes references to full length blog entries on the history and usage and meaning(s) of a particular name and references to its increase in popularity. Several of the blogs are by authors who have published works by independent publishers and/or have been quoted as experts in articles in prominent newspapers about names. In any event, this discussion has gone on for over a month and my position is simply not going to change. I have given good reasons why these articles are notable and should be kept. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2022 (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.