- 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 wasspeedy keep massive nomination of non-related articles is a no-no. `'mikka 23:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This nomination is part of my attempt to purge Wikipedia of articles that are simply definitions of names, and I am filtering through all in the category starting with 'A'. I am willing to withdraw nominations that are made into valid disambiguation pages, articles or redirects. J Milburn 22:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominating-
- Delete, but... there are too many articles here for me to process them. I won't endorse the nomination with a standard "delete all" until I am convinced that they all should be deleted. I would prefer that the pace of this name-purging be slowed to about ten per day, as with the mass deletion of mast articles. Of the ones I did see, most were deletable, but I thought Ari could perhaps be saved. YechielMan 23:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I looked at a few more. Here's a rule I'm suggesting: keep name articles if and only if they assert a fundamental cultural notability. This would include Adina, which appears in the Hebrew Bible, and Akash, which is derived from a universal element in the Hindu religion. It would exclude names where the only relevance is "some people have this name." YechielMan 23:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Only ten per day? Ok, I suppose that makes sense. I will do that in future, but this has started now, so I can't really do much. J Milburn 23:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I looked at a few more. Here's a rule I'm suggesting: keep name articles if and only if they assert a fundamental cultural notability. This would include Adina, which appears in the Hebrew Bible, and Akash, which is derived from a universal element in the Hindu religion. It would exclude names where the only relevance is "some people have this name." YechielMan 23:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep all. Names are labels, and as such don't have a definition. The articles I looked at from the list (Andrew, Annelise, Ayesha) are stubby, but include more cultural/use information than fits a dictionary, I think. Is there anything in the Category:Given_names that you think is keepable? I would oppose deleting everything from it. Articles like Ani (Name) are too contentless to keep, but your approach seems too broad-brush to me. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles must not be blanket mass-deleted like this with one vote. I followed the link from Arif to this page. I don't know about the other articles but if you would bother to read it, it is not a dictionary entry and contains a lot of useful encyclopedic information about Sufi historiography that would be a travesty to lose in a mass deletionist purge that seems to be all the fashion these days. Arif is definitely a keeper, but since you have included it with the others I have to vote keep on all of them. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Too many to evaluate at once. Some probably could be deleted, but others should stay. --Selket Talk 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.