Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidan rhyming trend

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. If sources can be found that make an analysis of this purported trend, it can be recreated. As it stands the article violates WP:NOR despite the sources provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aidan rhyming trend

Aidan rhyming trend (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

PROD template was removed, so I have brought this here. The article is completely non-notable, and of no value to an encyclopaedia. The article is based entirely on one source. Article has been deleted before via an uncontested PROD. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This article is referenced with multiple sources, it is highly notable and it deserves to remain. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete One swallow doesn't make a summer. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. There are multiple sources observing the phenomenon, . I disagree that this is highly notable, but it has been commented upon in multiple independent sources. Although the NYT link is a blog, I do think that with the book and website that there is enough to keep the article. It also bears noting that the articles' author is an unusually prolific content creator, and there is a good chance that the article will continue to be improved. Xymmax (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if being addicted to Wikipedia and a "highly prolific content creator" is entirely admirable, but sure, I'd add to the article if I found other sources. I know the rhyming trend has been noted in several other sources, printed and on-line. The 2007 name stats for the United States are scheduled to be released later this week and my best guess is that there will be several more newspaper articles across the United States commenting on the popularity of these rhyming names, most of which could be cited as sources for this Wikipedia article. I didn't create the original article that was deleted, but I thought it deserved to remain and recreated it. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. One New York Times piece, and a mention in a book is hardly multiple sources. More like two. All the New York Times piece tells us is that parents are calling their kids Jayden a lot in New York. I don't know how much detail the book goes into, but so far the article just says that the trend is a "millennial megatrend". The other sources are just providing the numbers of children in the US named each variant. The thing is, parents call their children lots of names. Some years, some names are more popular than others. Trends come and go. The New York Times article says that most of the children in New York were called Michael (although beaten when adding up all the varients of Jayden). Would a Wikipedia article about the Michael naming trend be appropriate? No, despite the fact I bet I could find a ton of baby naming books telling me Michael is a popular name. There is simply nothing inherently notable about this "trend" and a couple of sources briefly touching upon the subject is hardly a a basis for an entire article. Furthermore, this article contains pretty much the same info as when it was deleted previously, and I also don't see what the article creator's track record has to do with the notability of the article. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, actually there are three sources: the Behind the Name Web site, the New York Times blog, and the book by Rosenkrantz and Satran. I can provide far more than that and will. There are multiple sources to be had. The United States Social Security Web site provides the exact same information on the top 1,000 names for 2006 that is referenced with the list on the Behind the Name Web site. And there is an already existing article Michael on the so-called "Michael naming trend" that you just dismissed and on the history of that name, as there are individual articles on Wikipedia about the history and popularity of hundreds of other names. There is also an article on the most popular given names worldwide. The study of Onomastics, or the study of proper names, is devoted to the study of such things as the Aidan rhyming trend and the use of other popular names. Want more sources? I can certainly find them, even though every sentence in that article as currently written is backed up with a solid reference, including popularity stats and commentary from name experts. This is a notable subject and a notable article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt the validity of the statistics, but this simply isn't notable outside of the onomastics (thanks for the new word) world. As you noted, Michael deals with its popularity succinctly within the article - an entire article isn't necessary for this. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Laden with problems, may be the author's maiden attempt at an article, hopes for improvement are fadin'; as an alternative, maybe it can be merged to Aidan, although I seriously doubt the premise that people are trying to select names that rhyme with "Aidan" or "Brayden", no matter what the "Behind the name" website might claim. Certainly, that doesn't explain Barry, Mary, Kerry, Jerry, Larry, Perry, Terry, etc. I'm persuaded. Mandsford (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at the article in question or the sources cited? And, by the way, this is not my "maiden" attempt at an article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your entire article seems premised on one sentence in a Seattle newspaper article-- "We'll call it the 'rhymes with Aiden' pheonomenon for boys". Articles about baby names are generally intended to be a fun part of the lifestyle section of a newspaper, and I think that you've taken the reporters entertaining comments more seriously than the reporter intended. What's next, an article about the "Ailey rhyming trend" for girls? The "Ashton" phonomenon? This isn't the basis for an entire article. Mandsford (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Colonel Warden. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It's basically a trivia section entry, plus a big chunk of statistics. Further, while notability as measured by appearance in sources is necessary for inclusion, it's not sufficient (per WP:NOTE) and I just don't think this is encyclopedic enough. Olaf Davis | Talk 20:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The article starts out by writing in circles: The names Aidan, Braden, Caden, Hayden, and Jaden and their many variants are currently extremely popular in the United States. Authors Linda Rosenkrantz and Pamela Redmond Satran referred to it as a "millennial megatrend" in their 2007 book The Baby Name Bible. The popularity of each of these rhyming names has also been increased by the popularity of similar sounding names such as Aidan, Braden, Hayden, and Jaden. (In other words, Aidan, Braden, Caden, Hayden, and Jaden are popular thanks to the popularity of Aidan, Braden, Hayden, and Jaden.) Then there are a few sentences of actual content, followed by a long paragraph of statistics that don't prove any kind of trend. (The existence of multiple names on a single year's baby name statistics doesn't show whether those names are going up or down.) I note from Template:Names in world cultures that Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article about American trends in given names, and it probably should. If such an article existed, I could support a slight merge of the most useful content from this article into it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Aidan. Even if there were citations from leading broadsheets, I don't think it quite stands alone, but it's certainly notable enough to record the trends and comments within that article. The articles on other rhyming names can still have a sentence with a link to that section. Please tabulate the stats. - Fayenatic (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research and general trivia. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete: Baby name trends? How exactly is this notable? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The popularity of certain names certainly can be considered an indicator of the culture for a particular place and time. The Social Security Administration objectively documents the frequency with which particular "monickers" are bestowed, by tracking birth certificate information. The question of "what did you name your child" is required information. On the other hand, there are no studies that ask, "Why did you name your child ______?". There are no studies about why any particular name is popular, nor would it be practical to poll a statistically representative sample of, say, parents who named their child "Aidan" or something that rhymes with that name. As such, an article or book about popular baby names can't be taken too seriously beyond the annually-released statistical information. Mandsford (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the people who write those books do conduct fairly extensive surveys, including "Why did you name your child such and such?" The authors of the book I cited did so of a few thousand parents. This information belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, the information is relevant for the article Aidan, probably worth a mention in Braden, Caden, Hayden and Jaden, and certainly a relevant observation for an article about the most popular names for 2006. There's a difference between noticing a pattern, and documenting a trend. While I don't doubt that the book authors have asked parents generally about the reasons why they chose the name they chose for a particular child; and that some of those parents reported that they named their child Aidan and gave the reason why; it's still impractical to do a survey regarding a specific name, like Aidan, and unlikely that it has been done. Mandsford (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per the nomination, the original research issues have not been addressed nor does it appear they ever will (or can) be. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Hold on a minute. Empirical observation is a cornerstone of science. An observation has occurred that names that rhyme with Aidan are common and may be becoming commoner. Well, so what? I think that Bookworm857158367 has done a pretty good job of attempting to write an article which describes and supports this observation, and backing it up with some numbers (I agree these require tabulation for clarity). It may be that only a very few people in the scholastic world think there is any importance to this observation, but surely Wikipedia is a place which has room for articles which are important only to a very few individuals. As it stands, I think the article is weak, but I think that improvements could be made. My judgment then? Keep but Improve. (I don't think the material should be merged with the Aidan article). Preacherdoc (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• No, you hold on a minute I can appreciate what you're saying, but one of the main principles of Wikipedia is "no original research". If you've contributed to Wikipedia for awhile, the concept is familiar; if you're new to Wikipedia, I can say that the concept took me awhile to adjust to when I first started contributing, and I think others have felt the same way. The official explanation can be found in WP:OR if you want to see what "they" say about it; my take on it is that it's alright to write about theories and observations that have been published elsewhere, with appropriate citations, but that one can't base an article about their own empirical observations. Granted, one will find plenty of examples of original research ("O.R." or "OR") that's tolerated, such as in one of the way too many articles about TV show episodes; granted, the article has sources including some that have commented that there are a lot of kids out there whose names rhyme with "Aidan". Where the "original research" comes in is in concluding that there is an "Aidan rhyming trend" or that there is an explanation for why Aidan, Braden, Caden, etc. are popular choices. After the band Looking Glass released their sole hit in 1972, there were lots of girls named "Brandy". Empirical observation may be a cornerstone of science, but there's no scientific study to be observed here. Mandsford (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My comments were not directed to you personally, Mandsford. I've been a Wikipedian longer than you have; there is no need to quote the rule book at me. In my view, Bookworm857158367 isn't providing OR (although it is clear s/he believes in what s/he is writing). I'm not saying this is a brilliant article. I am saying that I think it shouldn't be deleted until it's had a chance to be improved: hence my request to "hold on a minute". Preacherdoc (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a brilliant article either. It's a few paragraphs that I dashed off with the intention of adding to it later -- a stub, in other words, exactly like a number of other stubs on Wikipedia, but one I thought should not have been deleted in the first place. I also fail to see how it's "original research" when every sentence is backed up with a citation indicating that several other someones said it. If this is deleted, I'll be adding the information to the Aidan article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The main claim in this AfD is original research, which isn't really necessary, since the phenomenon has been mentioned in multiple legitimate media sources. Crystallina (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It's clear that sources have been added, the article has been refined, and that I misunderstood the article as being an attempt to explain why names like "Aidan" and "Braden" are popular. I think that consideration should be given to moving the article to a different name, since I think it implies that people are setting out to do "rhyming". For whatever reason, the increased frequency of names that contain the sound ā-dən is documented; and as the article demonstrates, if all of the variants were considered together, they would rank higher on the list. In today's paper (and probably in papers earlier this week) are the tops for 2007 in the USA: Jacob, Michael, Ethan, Joshua, Daniel, Christopher, Anthony, William, Matthew and Andrew, in that order; Emily, Isabella, Emma, Ava, Madison, Sophia, Olivia, Abigail, Hannah and Elizabeth, in that order. For the most part, last years top ten names are in the top ten this year, albeit not in the ame order. Mandsford (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So what if its documented? You just listed a bunch of popular names. Do we have articles devoted to their popularity? Should we? No on both counts. Wikipedia is not a place to showcase every documented trend. This article is about as useful as one telling us that more dog owners are calling their pets Rover. There is simply nothing of interest here. In response to the "multiple legitimate media sources" above, a one line mention that names ending "en" and "an" are currently popular, or a two sentence paragraph stating "Aiden, Caden, Hayden are Jayden" are popular is hardly the basis for an article. In fact the NYT article states that the myriad of spellings of "Jayden" make it a top 10 name in New York City. Is that it? Thats hardly a revolution. The NYT article also mentions loads of other trends in baby naming - yet why is this one deemed more notable than the rest? And I still don't believe the Aidan rhyming trend is anywhere near up to scratch. The entire statistics paragraph is original research, as it take figures for one year and uses this as proof for a trend - pure OR. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The stats are cited and they are in existence at the Social Security Administration web site. It's not original research. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it is you who is making a trend out of these stats. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. I cited two or three newspaper articles that called it a trend and noted those names' popularity. Then I included the actual popularity of the different spellings of those names for 2006, located on the Social Security Administration web site. The 2007 stats are now available and those can be added as well. If I had compiled those statistics myself from local birth announcements and said it was a trend myself, THAT would be original research. This most decidedly was not. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2008 (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.