- 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. Whether or not to move the individual names to a separate List of archetypal names can be decided elsewhere. — CharlotteWebb 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have a page that as of yet cannot even provide a source for the title of the page! A long list without a few sources. Some of this list pertaining to supposed ethnic slurs. The page looks to me like a list of slurs, stereotypes, and names of famous people that someone decided are "archetypal names," and listed them together. OR to the max. Sethie (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. the term exists. The list is mostly verifiable. The proper solution is to source the information. `'Míkka>t 20:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Source away.... and I'll change my vote. Because I filed it wrong, you've already had almost 36 hours... and no solid sources have appeared. Sethie (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it's always going to be chock-full of OR; articles on metasyntactic variable and placeholder name would seem to be ample. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, the proper solution to keep OR out is to source infomation, not to delete valid topic. "Placeholder name" is not the same as "archetypal name". the very fact that you don't know this makes the article necessary. `'Míkka>t 18:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mikkalai. Happy editing, SqueakBox 19:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep article is in poor condition (I especially don't understand a word of the section about Abraham, which doesn't seem to be about archetypal names at all) but that's a reason to improve, not delete. NB We have many pages which have no sources at all - we delete those for which a source cannot be found, not those for which one has not yet been provided. --Dweller (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No source for the concept around which this page has been created. Sethie (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*:You've already nominated the article for deletion. I think the closing admin will know you think it should be deleted. --Dweller (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this. What is your experience- do the people who nominate tend to vote, or not? Sethie (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- fortunately, it does not matter, for administrators generally do know to count, and also know to consider only arguments based on policy. DGG (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this. What is your experience- do the people who nominate tend to vote, or not? Sethie (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*:::...and, importantly, it's not a vote. You can find out more about how the process works at WP:AFD and links from there. --Dweller (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem very knowledgage about the whole process Dweller and very eager to help. In your experience do people who nominate tend to ughhhhh weigh in? Mine is they do- but only about 99% of the time. What is yours? Sethie (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I think I've gone over the edge from helpful to patronising and I apologise to Sethie, because I think my tone was inappropriate. --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your appology is welcome and not neccesary- and a great reminder to me to take things easy and say "sorry" when I am not satisfied with how I interacted with people. :) Sethie (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to antonomasia and improve that article to better reflect this aspect of the word. Per ([1]). With thanks to User:SaundersW. --Dweller (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose to "redirect". Wikipedia is not paper. The concepts are not the same and antonomasia is in no way "better" here. (The word "sometimes" in "antonomasia" article easily escapes attention of occasional lookers-peepers.) By your logic everything remotely similar (archetype, kenning, antonomasia, synecdoche) is to be merged into metonymy. Different words are used in different situations for a reason. An encyclopedia in to clarify this reason, not to lump everything together and blur it into a mess. `'Míkka>t 15:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've added to the talk page four sources which use this phrase. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw most of those when I was searching for sources. However, I don't think any of them mean what the article is saying, they're just applying the common adjective "archetypal" to the noun "name", rather than using the phrase to mean something specific. So, to make up two sentences:
- "Paddy" is an archetypal name for an Irishman - the less specific meaning, where it's an adj+noun
- "Lolita" is an archetypal name for a provocative young girl - the specific type of usage we're after. --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 66 hits on Google Print; term exists, case closed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dweller is right on the money. Because the phrase "archetypal name" shows up on hits doesn't mean it is a term! Do a search on "boring name" and you'll get 39,000+ hits, should we write an article on that? :) The fact remains that no one has yet to produce a source that discusses this term, nor gives a formal definition of this alleged term. Sethie (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Rename as List of archetypal names. A good dictionary should suffice as a source of accepted usage for each item. I'll go and add some dictionary.com sources right now. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I spent quite some time carefully doing exactly that, but Sethie reverted the edits stating that it was OR because the dictionaries only used the name in the way defined in the article without actually using the term "archetypal name". I don't accept that.
- For a list, it is sufficient that the concept is notable. I believe the Ghits mentioned above for "archetypal name" demonstrate this. Now all that is needed are sources for the instances on the list.
- Where a personal name has become a word and entered dictionaries as such, e.g. Casanova, that is a sufficient and reliable source. Some other cases are not in the main dictionaries; even if the usage sounds familiar, it would clearly be WP:OR to provide examples from literature or TV, so perhaps those should be removed from the list - arguably they are references to the character rather than archetypal names. Then again, WP:NOTABILITY does not require sources for each item in a list, since the list provides context: If appropriate sources cannot be found, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context. - Fayenatic (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- However, WP:NOR does for each name. Sethie (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2008 (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.