Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konstas

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Konstas

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Konstas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one with a stand alone article. Redirect to Sam Konstas per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD process is not a great place for primary topic discussions, WP:RM should be used instead, because a name index can still remain even if one topic is chosen as primary (maybe there are other entries that just aren't documented there yet).
The other Konstas entry seems to match the guideline on items without standalone articles. It links to a player at an Olympic event, so there is some obvious potential.
The proposed primary topic is a twenty year-old player who seems to have participated at the under-19 level. Why would the average English reader strongly associate this name with this person?
A Google Books search for the term shows me nothing in particular, a lot of ambiguity.
It seems more likely that the average reader wouldn't recognize this term at all. Short-circuiting to one person instead of presenting this short list doesn't seem to be particularly beneficial. (Keep) --Joy (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale is The proposed primary topic is a twenty year-old player who seems to have participated at the under-19 level.. Quick fact check; Sam Konstas has played Test Cricket at the Senior Level. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I skimmed the article and apparently missed that. Maybe this information would be obvious to someone who is more in-universe in this regard, but this is a general encyclopedia, not a secondary source on cricket, or any other sport, or any other field of endeavor. --Joy (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joy I get what you are saying, but I don't think citing google books is a good example as many authors of books won't be notable. I also understand that this is a general encyclopaedia. I still stand by my argument that Sam is the primary topic. He's not Messi, Ronaldo or Michael Jordan type notable. Not even as notable as someone like Sam Kerr. But Sam Konstas before his Test debut got was considered an exciting prospect and arguably got the most attention of anyone on the Boxing Day Test. The other is a water polo player who played at the 1972 Olympics. Basically I would argue he was just considered a part of an Olympic squad. Don't think he was notable for anything besides being there. Sam on the other hand got a lot of attention for playing Un Orthodox shots. It's a good rationale but I am still convinced Sam is the primary topic. Also with regards to books, books on stuff like war are going to have the names of many non notable people in a war. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should be looking for indicators of significance, such as for example some relevant biographer's secondary source about this person. It's hard to expect for this to exist at such a young age, and likewise it's hard to expect that the average reader associates this surname with this person.
How do we normally measure attention in this topic area, and how does that compare to worldwide general measurements of the same? I don't know.
Google Trends for the search terms show two spikes of interest, both of which are past now, and interest is miniscule now.
That website also showed me the topic of Giorgos Konstas, which we don't have documented here, but it's plausible that we could.[1]
I see evidence that in recent times people have looked up the the surname probably in reference to this one person, but no real evidence that this is an actual primary topic according to the guideline. --Joy (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's still not clear to me what the consensus is here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to failing notability criteria as a surname page. Then it can be redirected as a primary redirect if necessary. The argument put forth by Joy is only relevant if this page is notable, which it clearly is not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm a minor anthroponymy index might not be (obviously) notable according to the WP:N article guideline, but that guideline isn't meant to apply to it because it's not a regular article. WP:5P1 says Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. which is why we include these sorts of indices even if they're not articles. --Joy (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A set index article is a form of list, which falls under list-based notability criteria. Something violating that would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I am unaware of a policy where set index pages are an exception to that rule, and 5P1 can simply mean that infoboxes contain almanac-like or gazette-like information alongside the article itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's not really just a form of a list. Have you ever seen WP:Set index#Common selection criteria? The concept of it being a list of notable items has been documented there since 2019 (probably, that's from my quick search, could be older).
    The idea of these sorts of set indexes often being very similar to disambiguation pages, hence not necessarily just list articles, has likewise been discussed at length, e.g. at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment/Archive 9#Request for comment in 2024 but we didn't reach a clear conclusion on what to do. --Joy (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That seemed to have its fair share of people arguing essentially the same thing that I am - that a set index article requires context and therefore notability (i.e. something like Herman (name)). While it can certainly be a list of names, The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list. In the absence of consensus, it reverts to the status quo, which is that name lists are not a form of disambiguation. It would need people to agree that they are, which didn't happen. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We habitually add name lists into disambiguation pages, this is long documented in the WP:D guideline and there is no missing consensus there. The formatting changes to make this Konstas set index a disambiguation page are trivial. --Joy (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I disagree with the idea that just because we didn't reach a coherent, strictly expressed consensus about the matter of navigation pages in that discussion, that we should just toss all that into the wind. That would truly be dismissive of the volunteer time invested in it, and it would be suspiciously close to WP:Status quo stonewalling. We never had a coherent, strictly expressed consensus about a bunch of things expressed e.g. in the WP:D guideline text (that's the one I've investigated the most so I say this with a bit of experience), and yet we generally recognize most of it as applicable. --Joy (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Konstas&oldid=1309129926"