Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 all not marked as valid disambiguation in total 15 votes delete (mixed in with keep disambig. delete rest votes), 3 keep all, 3 relist and 1 merge. Feel free to bring back any page as a valid disambiguation.--Jersey Devil 05:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abhay

Abhay (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This a series of names taken from the Indian given names category. Some in that category were valid disambig pages, or articles, but the following should be deleted, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and all they do is define the name. Perhaps some of these will make valid redirects, disambigs or articles. I am happy to withdraw individual nominations. I am also nominating-

Comment :Any that I have struck out, I am withdrawing the nomination for. Also note that I am withdrawing the nomination for Abhay itself, as it is now a valid disambiguation, but I reqest this discussion is kept open for obvious reasons. J Milburn 00:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also adding in Meghna (name) which was speedily deleted earlier tonight, but then recreated. This will hopefully settle that matter. These all need to go. J Milburn 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a repository of redundant, unencyclopedic information. --Ragib 01:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Among the other things Wikipedia is not, it shouldn't be a baby name guide. janejellyroll 01:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; maybe transwiki to Wiktionary instead. Bigtop 01:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. --NMChico24 02:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. MER-C 02:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and send somewhere else - perhaps to a sister project? --Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 03:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Given names is an encyclopaedic topic that many traditional encyclopaedias also cover. In fact, the whole category Category:Given names is devoted in Wikipedia for this purpose. See also Adam (name), Constance (name) and Edith for just a few WP pages devoted to given names. Westenra 03:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all" per nom. They can't stand on their own as articles. As per above, wiki is not a dictionary --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 03:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Terence Ong 04:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep there are a lot of surnames on Wikipedia, and if we are going to nominate them for deletion, than we should go for other categories as well. But please, hear this before you cast your !vote for delete: a lot of these are notable. Anuj, aside from having 850,000 ghits, is part of Hindu mythology, according to the article. Clearly, these names are notable. If you believe they lack sources, then I say tag them as such and look for sources, then, when the source isn't locatable, nominate it for deletion under this premise. Part Deux 07:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, these are actually first names/given names, and NOT surnames. As for ghits, you'd definitely get ghits when those are part of many persons name. The word "Has" gets a lot of ghits too (2.6 billion). Yet its proper place is a dictionary. --Ragib 08:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Relist individually. For each of these names, a determination about deletion will need to depend on what verifiable sourcing is available. Some of these names have mythological applications, some do not. Some have been used in Indian business, some have not. Especially because there will be large numbers of false positives on Google, and because searching for non-English top, these articles should be given separate treatment to ensure that worthwhile content is not accidently removed. Serpent's Choice 08:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Relist individually. Most of these should be deleted, but a few such as Sujata contain more information than just the name. utcursch | talk 10:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I personally do not want to relist these individually. It took me long enough as it was, and relisting all of these will clog the deletion debate. If you tell me the specific articles that could be kept, the reason they should be kept, and I agree, then I will strike them out on my list and withdraw my nomination for that individual article. I don't know whether that is allowed, but I think that would be the best way of dealing with this situation. Relisting them individually would be very inpractical and inconveniant for everyone involved. J Milburn 10:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and repeat, do not relist individually, but without prejudice to recreation if and only if someone can create a sourced and expanded article in the future. As it is, they're effectively dicdefs (namedefs?) Seraphimblade 11:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all, on the basis that Wikipedia is not a Dictionary of Names. (I have one, very interesting it is too, but it's just what it says - a dictionary.) The fact that some of these are also names of Hindu mythological characters is irrelevant: these articles are about the names, not the characters. If mythological characters have articles that's one thing; this is a separate issue. Emeraude 16:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nomination, Wikipedia is not a dictionary --Mhking 16:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or relist - Some of these serve as disambiguation, and many of these are oprevalent in Hindu history. Some names like Praveen are very common (for disambiguation, Praveen Togadia, do a search of praveen) and some Manjunath should be deleted, because there are very few manjunath's in the world.Bakaman 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Relist individually. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: To the people telling me to relist, I doubt you would be willing comment on all of them, never mind individually list all of them. As for making these into valid disambiguation pages- I am completely open to that, why doesn't someone do it? J Milburn 17:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge: These names-entries are relatively short, why don't we just make an article with a sub-section for these names? I so no reason why they are not notable together, but they are weak, unnecessary stubs sole.Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 23:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Akhil, Ananta, Anuj, Arindam, Pranab, Praveen, Ritesh, and Sujata which have all been reduced to disambig or redirects. Keep and expand Nandini (important in Hindu mythology and also a notable trademark). Delete the rest per nom. — Kaustuv CHAUDHURI 23:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Also keep Abhay, which has also been reduced to a disambig. — Kaustuv CHAUDHURI 23:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete those that read like Abhay (This name means: , People with this name are generally: , This is not a very common name. Keep all the others and expand them as much as possible. - AMP'd 23:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: If Nandini is an important mythological character and a notable brand, then two seperate articles need to be written on them, and then this could be kept as a disambig page. Until then, I think it should be deleted. J Milburn 00:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete all: if any of them have includable factoids like links to mythology, include said factoids in the relevant articles for that topic. Given names are by themselves not notable, and WP:NOT is clear about not being an indiscriminate list of lists nor a dictionary. Jerry lavoie 23:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
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.