Talk:List of Samanthas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From VfD:

Delete. Non-useful disambig page. One definition is a redirect to an old TV program, the other is a red link to a very minor character on another TV show. Nothing here suggests to me that this disambig page is necessary. Kevyn 06:34, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree it's not much of a disambig page. So I've removed the disambig notice and made it point to a whole bunch more fictional samanthas. We could add more on the origin of the name Samantha etc. I can't think of any really famous one named Samanthas who would take the spot instead, so just leave it there as an article on the name which will eventually fill out. I'll actually put the stub message up too.--Samuel J. Howard 07:19, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ugh. Now I really object to the page. I don't like disambig pages that are just a bunch of people who happen have the same first name, especially without links. I repeat my earlier objection, this page serves no purpose. Kevyn 07:28, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I rather dislike the list of Samanthas. Does the first line count only as a dicdef? (No vote as yet) Average Earthman 14:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not a disambig page. It's an article on the name Samantha that is still getting going.--Samuel J. Howard 16:05, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This looks better; thanks for the effort, SJH. I wouldn't mind having such a list for a number of common names. +sj+ 07:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - We don't need one of these for every christian name... what's next? Spanish names? Russian names? Baltic republic names used by part-time radio newscasters (part-time farmers)? - Tεxτurε 20:47, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Middle names, Surnames, Pet's names ... *cries*. Seriously, though, we do not need an article about every single thing on earth at Wikipedia. Its supposed to be an encyclopedia. Yes, a strange, somewhat whimsical encyclopedia in some spots, but still a serious encyclopedia all the same. --Elf-friend 21:01, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • You are worried about having too much information in wikipedia? I would love to see Wikipedia have an article on every single thing on earth. Thanks to the miracles of modern technology, we will not be limited by having 'too many articles' for the foreseeable future. Let people write about what interests them, and don't worry about the categorical imperative. +sj+ 07:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • • We have an article on every single Pokeman, surely one of the top ten first names in the US could have an article.--Samuel J. Howard 01:07, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
        • Actually, I've made a start on VfD-ing Pokemons as well. The level of detail on some things is absolutely ridicilous. Pokemon has more articles pertaining to it than most countries. That is not a good thing. --Elf-friend 13:44, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not being facetious when I say this. I hate 'em, but it seems like what you're proposing is a List of Samanthas. The list can have all of this information in it. In fact, I dislike explanatory lists a lot less than just the trivia-hunter lists that are nothing but bullets and names. I'm abstaining, because I like the content you have and don't like the title. Geogre 04:17, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done.--Samuel J. Howard 07:47, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep if article gives origin/meaning of name Samantha plus note on popularity - I'd be happy to see that for any forename. But I definitely counsel steering clear of listing people who share the name. Maybe there needs to be a forename article policy. Why are you throwing things at me? I'm serious. I AM! --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 03:50, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete No more articles like this. As for etymology and meaning of names and their popularity, seems to me that an encyclopedia article discussing this with references would be the right course for an encyclopedia, with perhaps tables giving the 50 most popular male and 50 most popular female given names in the English-speaking world in 1900, 1925, 1950, 1975 and 2000 with links to further reading and study. That would be encyclopedic. This isn't. And don't tell the category maniacs that we need category of "First name:Samantha" and category of "First name: James" and category of "First name: Sally" and category of "First name: George". Jallan 22:28, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Seems like this has been kept cos of a tied vote? Would it not have been better to keep it up on VfD until things swayed one way or the other? If it's policy only to list for a restricted amount of time, ignore me... --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 22:00, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)