Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names and meanings

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, WP:SNOW. This would inevitably be just a pile-on if left open longer. postdlf (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Names and meanings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article without any definite purpose. How big could this go. Anbu121 (talk me) 17:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. -- Luke (Talk) 17:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced, improper list. Mysterytrey 17:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While this could be cool, that alone isn't a reason to keep an article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the article is unsourced as well. Zaldax (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced. A decent article on the meaning of different names might be worth keeping, but there is nothing worth saving here. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2012 (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.