Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three(3) Word Names

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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-10 21:00Z

[edit] Three(3) Word Names

Three(3) Word Names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Originally tagged for speedy, but doesn't fit any criterion. This is a list attempting to record all three-word names, which is textbook listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unlike most procedural nominations, this is not a no-opinion nom. Coredesat 05:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep The nominator misunderstood the purpose of the list. It was not to list everyone who has 3 names. The persons are those who almost always are referred to by all three names, such that if you omitted the middle name most people would have no idea who you were referring to. Martin King? George Carver? John Booth? Robert Stevenson? William Bryan? Who? The list is a maintainable and defined one. They have to be notable enough in their own right and the usage could be Google checked if there were disputes. Edison 05:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this article? I know that's not a real AfD argument, but really? -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This list seems very, very useless. This is not a reason to delete, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT for what it's worth. --N Shar 05:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete on further review, this is just OR. Who says these people are most commonly known by three names? Thomas Edison? Franklin Roosevelt? If you use google as your yardstick, then you'll have to retitle the article "People who get the most google results with three names."-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dmz5. The two cases he cites there are great examples of people who are certainly "known by three names", but not necessarily "most commonly known by three names" (outside of the States, Thomas Edison's middle name isn't overly well-known). Additionally, mention should be made of the fact that the list doesn't - at least not in its current form - distinguish between those who are known by three names because that's the way they insist(ed) on being called and those who are known by three names because that was inflicted upon them (Lee Harvey Oswald is one example, I believe). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR. (It's also hopelessly US-centric; where are David Lloyd George and Charles James Fox to pick a couple of random examples?) -- Bpmullins | Talk 16:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:OR. TonyTheTiger 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if you assume the information is potentially interesting or useful, the list suffers from problems of verification and subjectivity. It is likely a subjective call and original research deciding whether a person is known by three names or two. How do you handle people that have been called both with three names and two names by different sources? There are also probably no reliable sources you can reference that say "so and so is known by most people by three names". Thus even if the information has potential to be useful somehow, it still needs to be deleted due to verification and subjectivity. Dugwiki 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Hobbeslover talk/contribs 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per well-written nom; nothing more really needs to be said. JuJube 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is simply a fun list of famous people commonly (not statistically) called by three names. Many of these people would seem unfamiliar without their middle name included. Obviously there will be disagreement, but this list seems valid enough to stay --Skullknick069 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Being "fun" isn't a means of making something encyclopedic. Additionally, there's a serious risk of bias (in that, as I've previously indicated, Edison's middle name is only really used in some parts of the world). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the criterion as stated isn't helpful, because what is obvious to one person isn't clear to another. To me, two of the initial examples are as identifiable with or without. To do this right would really take OR. Possibly a nice sociolinguistics paper, if backed by some theory.DGG 05:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There's nothing particularly significant about being referred to by three names, and per nom. GassyGuy 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No real purpose. Georgia guy 23:35, 7 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.