Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorota
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. WP:NOT and WP:V, foundation principles, were cited and not addressed. - Daniel.Bryant 23:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dorota
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is an extension from my nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhay, this time culling the fluff from Category:Czech given names, Category:German given names and Category:Irish given names. Again, I will withdraw the nomination if the article can be made into a valid redirect or disambiguation, or even article. J Milburn 17:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I am also nominating-
- Jiří
- Éanna
- Gerok
- Delete Dorota, Jiří and Gerok which are nothing more than name dic defs - Keep Éanna which is a valid disambig. Nuttah68 16:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It is not a valid disambiguation page, it only links to one article. It actually meets the speedy deletion criteria, I just brought it here to give it a chance. J Milburn 16:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- It may be only one blue link, but the three kings of Ireland with the name make the name notable even if articles have not been written yet. Nuttah68 16:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I am not denying that the people the article links to are notable, I am just saying that, until we have articles on them, there is no need for a disambiguation page. That is the Wikipedia poliy. J Milburn 16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I'll accept delete on Éanna if none of the information (the King's names and reign dates) is lost. Of course that will mean creating an article and we then need a disambig. The page is more than a basic disambig and does contain information, minimal I'll accept but because it is royalty it is notable. Nuttah68 16:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I am not denying that the people the article links to are notable, I am just saying that, until we have articles on them, there is no need for a disambiguation page. That is the Wikipedia poliy. J Milburn 16:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- It may be only one blue link, but the three kings of Ireland with the name make the name notable even if articles have not been written yet. Nuttah68 16:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Strong keep I think this is a part of wikipedia, information about names and its origin. If you see in the name just a translation of its english equivalent that's seriously wrong point of view. Every name has its origin and meaning which can be a part of encyclopedia. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: With all due respect, what you 'think is a part of Wikipedia' is irrelevent. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as is stated at this policy. There is no reason to keep these articles, and the consensus on the last debate should stand. J Milburn 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: why are you so disrespectful to the other opinions ? This is a correct dispution and I provided my opinion. I think you did not understand what I said. It is not a case George = Jiří, it is a case that Jiří has some kind of origin and was used since XY century etc. etc. Or don't you see that difference ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: So you are saying that we should have articles on words, describing their history? That is not an encyclopedia, that is a dictionary. In what way was I disrespectful of your opinion? I did my best to stick to policy, and, as I interpretted it, policy disagreed with what you were saying. Do I have to agree with you to be respectful? J Milburn 22:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: words and names are little bit different, aren't they ? It is a part of knowledge. No, you were disrespectful saying that what I think is irrelevant in the AfD dispution. I am telling you that you miss the point of that policy. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: So you are saying that we should have articles on words, describing their history? That is not an encyclopedia, that is a dictionary. In what way was I disrespectful of your opinion? I did my best to stick to policy, and, as I interpretted it, policy disagreed with what you were saying. Do I have to agree with you to be respectful? J Milburn 22:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: why are you so disrespectful to the other opinions ? This is a correct dispution and I provided my opinion. I think you did not understand what I said. It is not a case George = Jiří, it is a case that Jiří has some kind of origin and was used since XY century etc. etc. Or don't you see that difference ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless converted into a sourced article, a redirect or functional disambiguation page. Addhoc 14:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Dorota for sure. Practically unused among Czechs as the first name for decades, sometimes employed coloquially in Czech language as offense (dorota == dumb and/or quareling woman). Jiří (diminutives Jirka, Jiřík, Jiříček) is a very frequent Czech first name but I somehow fail to see much of value in the article so delete this too. A couple of relevant studies about evolution of Czech first names was published by Miloslava Knappová (in Czech language). Pavel Vozenilek 02:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all. Especially Éanna which contains zero useful information. All High-Kings of Ireland, be they ever so imaginary like these ones, are listed at List of High Kings of Ireland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:01, 10 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.
