Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longest reign name

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of monarchs with very long names

List of monarchs with very long names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Hopeless list of "longest names of monarch" without any references. In miserable state since created in 2006. I don't think it is useful or encyclopedic. Renata 16:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOT#INFO, specifically "Long and sprawling lists of statistics". Very limited geographical scope, as well. Tevildo 17:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Fails WP:IINFO and WP:DIR as a hopelessly sprawling list. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, pointless list. An article about monarches with long names is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. --RandomOrca2 18:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I should point out that this AfD is incorrectly targetted - the article itself is List of monarchs with very long names, and the subject of the AfD is a redirect. Tevildo 19:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    • That's because it was moved on 16:23, 15 July 2007 by Calgary. Corrected. Renata 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:NOT#INFO and also WP:DIR. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As with Scooby Dooby Doo or John Jacob Jinglehimer Schmitt, this is harmless fun for children, and the type of thing that probably ought to stay in for no other reason than to introduce a younger child to Wikipedia. Wiki is, for the most part, aimed at children, and this is every bit as encylopedic and worthwhile as Scooby and Shaggy would be. I'm not sure how many of the people in this forum are parents yet, but this is fact-based, fun to read, and learning in the guise of entertainment. In all fairness (see WP:BIAS) we should include long regnal names like "George V Frederick Ernest Albert, King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms, Emperor of India and Defender of the Faith" Anyway, lighten up, stop taking yourselves so seriously, let this one go. Mandsford 22:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Couldn't this article be put in WP:BJAODN and have a joke alert put on it? It is a amusing article, and like Mandsford said, it is harmless. --Onceonthisisland 22:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is very amusing. However, it's an arbitrary list. the_undertow talk 23:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and insert the full reign names in the appropriate articles where not done yet. This list is a tedious and pointless exercise, and its scope is limited to SE Asia only. Amusing? Might be, if only I understood what the titles mean. Such a list without translations is 100% useless.--Targeman 23:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I find this very amusing. If I had such a name, I would be very scared when it came time to fill out an application, apply for a driver's license or make dinner reservations. the_undertow talk 23:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Aaaah, OK :). Although I would imagine royals are rarely asked to fill forms or organize their dinner themselves... ;) --Targeman 00:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pretty much every royal from anywhere in the world would have a long name like these, so it's really not a particularly discriminate list. As currently written, it's more just a case of "Oooohhhh, look at these names!" which doesn't seem like a good basis for an article either. It might be amusing, but that's not a reason to have an article on it. Additionally, I'm not sure that "Wiki [sic] is, for the most part, aimed at children". Neither do I see the link between two notable cartoon characters and a list of long royal names. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If one goes simply by the numbers of articles, "Wiki" is indeed like a library with a large teen and YA area, and a few shelves worth of reference books. I agree with the idea that there should be more to the article, such as an explanation for the lengthy titles. But you know what? If a child were to look at the list and say "Oooohhhh, look at these names!", or if a child's mom or dad were to say the same thing in pointing it out to a child, there's nothing wrong with that. Perhaps sarcasm was intended, I can't be sure, but if it's an article that appeals to curiosity-- that makes someone ask, "Why is the name so long?" or "What does that mean?" or "How do you say that?" or myriad questions that your kids or mine might have that would never occur to me -- then it's a good start. Who among us hasn't read the "silly" Guinness Book of World Records, and its celebration of those places in Wales and New Zealand with no other claim to fame but a "long place name", yet been inspired to find out more. Wiki has to have more for kids than Pokemon cards and Rugrats episode guides. The link between the cartoon characters and the list of long royal names is that they are essentially entertainment, but serve less obvious purposes as well. Mandsford 01:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I admire your good-heartedness. But, (unfortunately), Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a playground for kids. The article might have a chance at survival if it was properly researched (giving references, translations, naming customs in different countries, etc.) and not just a simple dump of dubious information. Renata 01:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I second that. Wikipedia may be full of kiddy stuff but what attracted me to editing was the realization that grown-up, educated people had actually created a very interesting body of quality articles, and those are the one I would like to see developed. Articles such as this one, on the other hand, smack of an unworldly amusement at names that for some (unexplained) reason sound unusual to the author's ears. If we continue down this road, we may end up with List of people with funny names, List of weird foreign traditions, etc. Now I don't have children (AFAIK...) but I doubt a kid could a) ever find this orphaned article, b) derive any information from it beyond the notion that "kings in Asia have, like, totally weird names". Sorry if I sound cranky but it's 4 in the effing morning here and I'm off to bed. Good night :) --Targeman 02:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link. That article is much better in the sense that it lists people who changed their or their children's names on purpose as a publicity stunt etc. (On the other hand, several people with inherited names that just happen to sound unusual to English speakers should be deleted from that list IMO). But royal names are not chosen for their shock/amusement value; they are given following strict formal rules. They may sound funny to some, but they're not "unusual". --Targeman 22:20, 17 July 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.