Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most popular given names for twins in the United States
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 --JForget 01:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of most popular given names for twins in the United States[edit]
- List of most popular given names for twins in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Is this really notable? It's just basically a clone of this page, just written slightly differently: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/twins.html. If somebody really wants to see this information, they can just go to the original source rather than look at a reproduction of it on Wikipedia.
Plus, it's just not encyclopedic. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 02:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! Sarcasm is beauty 02:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I don't think naming twins is a particularly encyclopedic topic. Charles 04:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Not really notable information. JIP | Talk 04:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. Simply not encylopaedic. asenine say what? 06:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not encyclopedic in any remote way. JuJube (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-encyclopedic. (I also have the vague suspicion that the list somehow violates privacy, or will eventually. There aren't so many pairs of names, even at the top of the list.) Frank | talk 12:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Only marginally interesting, and not the basis for an encyclopedia article. Sixty-seven births of twins is not statistically significant, even when referring to a coincidence in bestowing names, and 13 births is even less so. Why would 67 new mothers name their twins "Jacob" and "Joshua"? Because there are thousands of equally unimaginative mothers naming boys "Jacob" or "Joshua", both names in the Top 5. Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unneeded, as just a page of statistics. — Wenli (reply here) 02:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.