Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 12

12 August 2008

Category:Mononymous persons – No consensus here, closure applauded and endorsed by default. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Mononymous persons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD) I assert that this debate was erroneously closed from the perspective of the discussion which had taken place. It appears rather obvious to me that the closing admin decided to chip in on the side which he/she favored disregarding the merits of the discussion. I would also point to two previous deletion debates of related categories which was similarly closed by the same admin. Subsequent to those two I urged the admin to reconsider his decision, announcing then that I would request a deletion review. I now follow up on this with the present category. meco (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse as closer. My close had nothing to do with what I favored. As I stated in my close, this is a recreation of previously deleted material. But if you really want to go based upon the merits of the discussion, we can do that too. "Leave it be, for gosh sakes . . it isn't hurting anybody" is a rather weak reason to keep. "Having one name is clearly a notable enough connection." is another reason to keep, and when questioned what Aristotle had to do with a drag queen named Barbette, the answer was "That's pretty simple: they are both Mononymous persons!" The overcategorization and OR arguments put forth in opposition to the category were stronger by far. --Kbdank71 16:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Comment. You present your case for not playing favorites poorly by ostentatiously picking the non-sequiturial and weakest pro arguments to reflect the past debate. __meco (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC) I could pick others. Your argument to keep centered on how I had closed two other similar discussions as delete when they were brought to CFD to rename. Or Nihil novi's argument to keep, which was "Keep". Or Masterpiece2000's "I don't understand why people want to delete this category. Category:Mononymous persons is an interesting category". There are many interesting but unencyclopedic categories, and they get deleted. --Kbdank71 17:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Comment. Kbdank71, that was not my full quote. And that was not Nihil novi’s full quote. The following was the full quote of Nihil novi: “In most of the world in modern times, it is unusual for an individual to go by a single name (mononym). It will surely strike anyone with the slightest curiosity as singular — if it is brought to his attention — that Molière, Voltaire, Stendhal and Colette all chose to use mononyms on the title pages of their writings: the first three, invented ones; the last, the author's actual surname. Similarly, many artists, entertainers, athletes have likewise deliberately employed mononyms though they had not been deprived of given names at the time of their christenings. At least one, Teller (magician), has actually gone to the length of legally discarding his given names. This is a coincidence of perhaps more import that those that are enshrined in such categories as "Category:Deaths from tuberculosis" or "Category:Burials at Père Lachaise Cemetery." The fact of the use of mononyms has not escaped the broader world — a Google search yields "about 2,000" citations — but it has, till now, been overlooked by Wikipedia. The article and category "Mononymous persons" have sought to remedy this oversight. I must therefore, in the present deliberations over retention of Category:Mononymous persons, vote: Keep.” Proof: [1] The following was my full quote: “I don't understand why people want to delete this category. Category:Mononymous persons is an interesting category and many editors have already pointed why this category shouldn’t be deleted. It was nominated for deletion in July 2008 and many editors argued against deletion. Please read the arguments by editors who voted “keep”.[2] I don’t want to repeat the same arguments again.” Proof: [3] Yes, there were many unenyclopedic categories that were deleted in the past. But in this case, Category:Mononymous persons is not an unencyclopedic category. Many editors pointed in the first deletion discussion why this category shouldn’t be deleted. I asked the admin who would close the deletion discussion to read the arguments by editors who voted “keep”. Enough was already said and I didn’t want to repeat the same arguments. Please read the arguments by editors who voted “keep” before making such comments. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC) My comments were also misrepresented. I may have used single sentences to start with, but when pressed I provided lots more reasons. I also said, "per the arguments of Cosmic Latte" as did at least one other editor. Why weren't the arguments of Cosmic Latte mentioned then? I also like how whenever the Guardian or New York Times articles are mentioned, all those in favour of deletion gloss over them. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT it would seem. They show the connection is notable! Deamon138 (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse per Johnbod's comment: "Mononymity is not intrinsically notable because in certain times and places it has been the rule rather than the exception." To categorise on this basis ignores this fact in favour of more recent and Western trends to "stand out". A list, which can provide additional information such as time period, location, birth name, and occupation, is much more suited to this task than a category. Given the balance of arguments, the close was well thought-out and appropriate. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Overturn. I don't know how these reviewy thingies work, but I'll just say that the decision was a bad one. Regardless of the fact that I supported the existence of this category, I don't think there was consensus to keep or delete in my opinion. The deleter had to write a hefty summary of why he decided to delete, and I always thought (and I'm sure this is in Wikipedia policy/guidelines somewhere but I can't remember where) that when a decision is made based on consensus, it should be obvious whether there has been consensus i.e. a lengthy comment before closing shouldn't be necessary as far as I'm aware. In terms of my own views on this category (am I allowed to give them, or this page merely fr discussing whether the closing editor was justified in closing it with delete?), I would say that is there any link between Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking? They are both physicists, and I am sure they are both in some physicist category. But that is their only link. The same goes with mononymous persons. The link between Aristotle and Barbette might only be that they are mononymous (never mind that Barbette is a stage name, that is a matter of criteria for entry into the category, it has no bearing on whether the category should exist or not), but sometimes people are notable for having one name. For instance, trying to find that hypothetical new Brazilian footballer someone might've heard about: Pele/Rivaldo/Ronaldo/Ronaldinho/whatever? etc. You get the point, Brazilian footballers as an example, are noted for having one name. Now those of course aren't their real names, but it is the name they are most known as (most people would look for Pele not Edison Arantes do Nascimento). Most people won't look for François-Marie Arouet, they will look for Voltaire, his pen name. Whatever criteria are used for this category, it certainly has a use to help readers find people known for being mononymous in some form, and that is the point of categorization: to aid the reader in finding a particular article. Deamon138 (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC) There have been notable people known by one name, but no one has ever been notable because they have one name. Postdlf (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Fairly true, but then most articles are in categories they aren't notable for being. For example, Einstein isn't notable because he was a zionist, and yet he is in Category:Zionists, nor is he notable for dying in 1955, yet he is in Category:1955 deaths. The same should apply here. Deamon138 (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse, closer properly disregarded absolute vote count to resolve based on merits of arguments in light of policy and precedent. The category was based on mere trivial coincidence of name, and so properly deleted per WP:OC, and it was a recreation of a previously deleted category. Postdlf (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC) "it was a recreation of a previously deleted category." We're using past consensus to tell if there is a present consensus now? And here was me thinking that consensus can change. Deamon138 (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse as nominator. There is no indication at the CFD that the closing admin misread the discussion. AFD is not a vote and DRV is not AFD round two. And although AFD is not round two, to respond as I did in the AFD to the notion that Einstein and Hawking are "only" connected by the one thing of being physicists, that's a pretty damn big thing. Having one name or two names or three names or two names with a hyphenated last name is perhaps interesting an an article on the phenomenon would probably be an interesting read. But interesting is not the standard for categories. Brazilian footballers, regardless of how many names they have, are categorized as Brazilian footballers. Someone using the category scheme to locate articles on Brazilian footballers is going to look for Category:Brazilian footballers, not Category:Mononymous persons. Otto4711 (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Your remarks with regards to Brazilian footballers would correct, if articles were only allowed to be in one category. But they're not, so why restrict people looking for a particular Brazilian footballer to just look in one category? (not all Brazilian footballers are mononymous by the way too). Deamon138 (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Do you really, truly, in your heart of hearts, believe that anyone using the category system to find Brazilian footballers is going to think of starting at Category:Mononymous persons? Otto4711 (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Not necessarily, but what would be the point of having multiple categories for an article, if people are most likely to start looking in only one of these categories? Deamon138 (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC) The point of multiple categories is that he people, places and things with articles on Wikipedia often have more than one defining trait or characteristic and multiple categories allows for them to be grouped together in a meaningful way. The possession or use of a single name is not a meaningful grouping. Otto4711 (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Overturn Let me ask a question: What is the relationship between Monica Bellucci, an actress, and Émile Durkheim, one of the founding fathers of sociology? There is only one link: both are agnostics. That’s the only common link between them. The same goes with mononymous persons. Many famous people are notable for having one name. The link between Madonna and Pate is that both are mononymous and that’s a unique link. Very few people in the non-English speaking parts of the world know that the full name of Madonna is Madonna Louise Ciccone Ritchie. The category is useful because it helps readers to know how many monomymous people there are. This category is not equivalent to "Musicians whose first name starts with M" because nobody would care if the name of Michael Jackson were John Mills, but people would like to know why the name of Madonna is just Madonna. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Wait. The category is useful because it helps readers to know how many monomymous people there are. So, then, there are only 15 monomymous people out there? I'd be willing to bet there are more. Not exactly useful. And if people are interested on why Madonna is named such, then perhaps they should read the article, because the category doesn't tell you that. Again, this is useful how? --Kbdank71 19:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC) "So, then, there are only 15 monomymous people out there?" Well there would be more in the category if people didn't keep putting it up for deletion. Deamon138 (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Wouldn't a list be more useful than a category for the purpose of knowing "why the name of Madonna is just Madonna"? After all, a category can never answer complex question of "why" or "how", whereas lists are perfectly suited to providing these relevant details. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC) We have the article Mononymous persons. I don't think we need a list. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse. I reject the argument that the closer is not permitted to weigh the strength of the arguments mustered when assessing whether or not there is consensus to delete. In this situation, it was a category that was previously deleted and re-created under a slightly different name; in such a situation, those favoring keep should bear a slightly higher onus in order to justify keeping the category, since technically speaking the category is open to a speedy deletion. The arguments that were given for keeping were fairly weak, as many above outline, and so I think the closer was entirely correct in assessing this. Closer could have been lazy and just said "no consensus", but that would have ignored the stark contrast in the strength of the arguments. CfDs are not a "vote", nor is the quantity of writing engaged in by one side determinative. Several keepers responded repeatedly to those who favored deletion, but the arguments didn't get any stronger as their volume increased. Many keepers seem passionate about retaining this information; in my opinion, it is a good candidate for a list. (Also: many of the "overturn" arguments above are focusing on other categories and their relationships, rather than this one. If their arguments are persuasive, this should not be necessary.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse. This was an excellent closing. It is imperative that closers interpret all discussion comments in relation to our policies and guidelines. Those wanting to keep this category gave plausible rationales for keeping a list of mononymous people, but the rationale is insufficient for keeping a category. Kbdank71, who has probably closed more CFDs than anyone, thoughtfully explained in his closing why the "delete" comments outweigh the "keeps". The point of CFDs is to help us keep our categorization system coherent. The purpose is not to re-envision our policies and guidelines with each debate. Our policies and guidelines can change, but there has to be cogent reasons to do so, and the discussion should focus on why it is imperative that the guidelines and policies should change. That did not happen in this discussion, so it makes sense that the closer took the action he did. In such cases it is not unusual for the closer to write a lengthy explanation. I am not aware of any case where the length of the closing explanation was an issue. If anything, closing explanations should be longer, not shorter. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 22:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Overturn. There was no consensus to delete. The administrator made the suggestion that this is equivalent to categorising people with the first letter M, or people named Buddy. These are truly trivial characteristics, and tell us nothing about the person. A mononymous name however, tells us a lot about the person and their social status. It is non-trivial for that reason - not as important as being born in a particular country, but important nonetheless. While it is indeed a categorisation by name (which sent people towards delete), it is a categorisation by a type of name, which (in this case) is a notable characteristic. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC) How does a mononymous name tell us anything about a person's social status when it is possible, in most places, to legally change one's name for a small fee? Also, what about the role of cultural differences in naming conventions? For instance, Madonna and Nyumbu both have mononymous names, but the former is an American entertainer, while the latter is a Zambian tribal chief. –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC) the name a person chooses is exactly what tells about his perceived status. And the national variation would be a good argument for using subcatogires as well, not for eliminating this one.DGG (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Question: why are some of the people who endorse the deletion of this category saying it would make a good list instead? Surely a list has to contain more information than a category? If so, then how can someone make the argument that it is trivial as a category but would be a good list if lists require more information? Either it is a trivial connection or it is a notable enough connection for a list: which is it? Deamon138 (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC) a list can contain more information than the name, such as the dates, nationality, and field. it can even be sortable. that would answwer some ofthe objections raised in the CfD about the unrelated nature of the individuals--by permitting sorting them for relatednesss. DGG (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Yes, but people have been saying (and I paraphrase), "there is no notable relation between the people eligible for this category, hence the category is trivial" but some of the same people are also suggesting a list, which as you (and I before you) have said, uses more information. How can a list be okay to these people if the connection in the first place is not notable according to their argument against the category? Deamon138 (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Ask the individual users. Name names, so they can explain what they meant if they wish to. It's possible you have misunderstood or your paraphrase is a mischaracterization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Er, you were one of them! In your endorse comment above, you said, "in my opinion, it is a good candidate for a list." Do you not remember your own opinion? Deamon138 (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC) As I am someone who said this, I am happy to respond. The criteria for categorization require much more than verifiability and notability. Categorization is a system of organization, and we have collectively decided that it must be edited to keep it from becoming overcategorized. The under-stated reason that we reject this as a category is that it would drastically lower the bar on our criteria for valid categories. It is not enough to be notable. Categories must be robust (not prone to cause clutter), functional (help users navigate through numerous articles), and academically oriented (helpful in researching a topic). This category is not robust (it would add to clutter, especially if other similar categories were allowed), not particularly useful, and not connected to a field of academic study. A category adds a prominent link to every article in the category. A list does not, so it does not need to meet the criteria I've mentioned. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC) If this category isn't robust, functional or not connected to academia, then surely the same would apply to a list. If the category causes clutter, then a list would cause the same clutter. Besides, where does it say that a category has to be connected to a field of academic study? I have not come across that part of Wikipedia policies/guidlines. I always thought that the connection that the category is about has to just be notable. Surely the Guardian and New York Times articles show notability? Deamon138 (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Notability may be necessary for a list, but it is not sufficient for category creation. The clutter I mention is "category clutter" -- when an article gets dozens and dozens of categories. We do not create a category for every notable attribute of a person. If we did, category listings would grow to be as long as the article (longer if we allowed multiple intersections). -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Overturn as no consensus. I'm inclined to say that there was borderline consensensus to Keep, but as someone in favour of keeping, I believe it is accurate enough to say that there was no clear consensus either way. The cited argument (while put forth by a user whom I particularly respect) that the category was analogous to "People named Buddy" is also flawed, to the extent that independent sources (such as The Guardian and The New York Times discuss the cultural significance of mononyms; I've yet to see comparable sources concerning the relevance of the name, "Buddy." If nothing else, the lack of consensus and lack of solid deletion rationale should make this a clear WP:DGFA case: "When in doubt, don't delete" (emphasis in original). Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC) That kind of skirts the fact that it was a previously deleted category under a different name. The onus kind of shifts in such cases, and "if in doubt, don't delete" doesn't apply with the same vigor. Some might even argue that in such cases, it should be "if in doubt, re-delete". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC) A fair point, but in that case I'd simply say that, of my arguments above, the non-WP:DGFA-related ones (especially the independent sources one) would be the strongest. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Comment: By the way, while WP:AGFing as much as possible, I find this diff by the closing admin to be very...odd. There, he appears to claim that Nihil novi's argument was simply the word, "Keep," when in fact Nihil novi's argument became quite in-depth. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC) I think it's fairly obvious that he was probably referring to Nihil novi's initial comment/vote, which, because of its odd structure and format, appeared to be, at first glance, simply, "Keep". Anyway, his further comments have been pointed out above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse. Highly refreshing to see an administrator weigh arguments seriously instead of merely counting votes. I believe the overturn side has yet to address the argument in favour of deletion that says that mononymity is inherently non-notable because in different cultures it has meant different things; in some of them it has been the rule rather than the exception. Nor has it been explained how, if mononymity is notable, polynimity is not. Why hasn't a Category:Persons with two names been created? Or Category:Persons with four names? What is the argument that explains the notability of mononymity and non-notability of these? There is none. In and of itself, mononymity has nothing to do with fame, nothing to do with personal choice, and nothing to do with the accomplishments of the person so-named. The mononymity of Madonna may be significant, but she is not the only candidate for entry in the category. The mononymity of Charles the Bald is unrelated to that of Madonna. In his case it is insignificant, since most persons in his society were mononymous. Srnec (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Comment: The fact that "in different cultures it has meant different things" was addressed in the initial CFD. That, I believe, is why Nihil novi argued that "in principle only such persons should be included who use a mononym but come from a polynymous society." Two names, four names, and the name Buddy have nothing whatsoever to do with this. We're talking about mono- and poly-: one or more-than-one. This is not a slippery slope to a bajillion trivial name-related categories; this is simply an assertion of the relevance of two types of people, mononymous and polynymous. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC) I addressed the silliness of a contrived principle by which a category would not cover what its name covers during the CFD. If I cannot go to Category:Physicists and assume that it ought to include all physicists on Wikipedia, what use is it? Should it exclude racist physicists because we don't like them? Or physicists who are more famous as something else because they make it bulky and less convenient? A category entitled "mononymous persons" ought to in principle cover all mononymous persons that we have articles on. Do you support Category:Polynymous persons? Will you create it? Srnec (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Comment: I would support Category:Polynymous persons, if it could be demonstrated that a notable group of polynymous persons comes from mononymous societies. More generally, I support using common sense. It may be useful to browse a category full of several individuals who have defied social customs (sociological relevance) regarding their name-based identities (psychological relevance). If you believe that categories are supposed to be exhaustive, even in principle, then you are in direct conflict with a Wikipedia editing guideline, which states that categories needn't even be comprehensive! I quote: "Not all categories are comprehensive: For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for "sensitive" categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization" (emphasis in original). Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Overturn: 13:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC): Kbdank71 closed 2nd CfD as delete 16:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC): deletion review initiated here 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC): category tagged with {{delrev}} notice. {{Cfd}} notice above it includes the caution do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress 20:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC): Kbdankbot began removing the category from articles Kbdank, after selectively disregarded community input in the CfD closure, disregarded the community consensus process guideline not to empty a category which is under discussion. — Athaenara ✉ 04:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Please consider withdrawing or rephrasing the last portion of your comment, since there's a lot of relevant information that you've overlooked. First, restoring the contents of a category is a simple matter when the depopulation is carried out by a bot (it's all in the edit history), so it's not really a big deal, especially when the categor contains just 15-20 pages. Second, the whole process of depopulating a category is automated: at 13:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC), approximately three hours before the DRV was initiated, Kbdank71 listed (see diff) Category:Mononymous persons on Kbdankbot's "to do" page; the bot just didn't get around to emptying the category until 20:38. Third, the caution to "not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress" refers to the CFD discussion, which has already concluded, and is not present on {{delrev}}. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Corrected in re {{Cfd}}. — Athaenara ✉ 05:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC) A good faith Del Rev is an indication that the discussion is still in process. DGG (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC) While Whether true or not, it's not relevant here, as the timeline posted by Black Falcon ably demonstrates. Even if Kbdank71 was engaged in some nefarious plot to thwart the community by emptying the category after the delrev notice went up, that in and of itself is not a reason to overturn the decision. Athaenara's rationale for overturning the CFD relies on arcane interpretations of process and does not address the substance of the CFD or the closing admin's rationale at all. Otto4711 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Not true. The CFD discussion is about the merits of the category. This DRV discussion is about the merits of the close. So a good faith Del Rev is an indication that a Del Rev discussion has started. The CFD discussion had already ended. --Kbdank71 18:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse Admins are supposed to weigth the arguments, including the interpretations of policies and guidelines. Deletion discussions are not head counts. I find that the closer weighted correctly the relative weight of the arguments, and correctly discounted some very weak arguments. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse Process followed, end of story. MBisanz talk 03:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Overturn. The decision to delete Category:Mononymous persons was taken without due consideration for the well-reasoned and well-documented arguments for its retention. This absence of careful reading and weighing of arguments is illustrated by the superficial reading of my own arguments, which were reduced to the final single word "Keep," which had merely (and intentionally) closed my argument instead of opening it. It also does not inspire confidence in the proceedings that previous debates on related categories had analogously been closed by the same single, evidently biased administrator. Proceedings conducted in similar ways have in the past sometimes been characterized as "railroads." Nihil novi (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC) I would suggest that as an assumption of good faith you retract your suggestion that the nominator was biased against the category. Perhaps if you'd written your AFD comments in the format that every other editor uses there would not have been any confusion that the lengthy comments above it were yours as opposed to those of an unsigned editor. Even so, you have no evidence to suggest that the closing admin didn't read and evaluate your comments even if he didn't realize that they were yours. Otto4711 (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Perhaps if you'd written your AFD comments in the format that every other editor uses there would not have been any confusion that the lengthy comments above it were yours as opposed to those of an unsigned editor. Give me a break! How can this comment cause any confusion? Anyone who read the full comment can easily figure out that the comment was written by Nihil novi. One has to read the comment carefully. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC) The first time I saw the comment, I was a bit confused by it. I think it can be confusing at first glance. It's partially attributable to the way reading on a computer screen differs from reading a piece of paper, but another factor is that it was set out and structured differently than 99% of all comments made in CfDs. I wouldn't take the closer's comments regarding these particular comments as the be all and end all of his decision. Obviously, he was basing his final decision on more than just his confusion or lack thereof regarding the comment and who made it. In any case, this has been addressed above twice now, and this is the third time it has been brought up. Maybe we should forgive him for making a mistake in attribution and give up carping about it. Or are there no more substantive reasons to be in favour of overturning the decision? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC) "More substantive reasons" are to be found within that comment itself and other comments made in the course of the present deliberations and of the earlier deliberations on related questions. Nihil novi (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Yeah, your quote has been reproduced above. This is the third time it's been raised. My point is instead of continually carping about a mistake that someone made, present some new substantive reasons. If you don't have any more, no need to say anything else, I guess. I meant "more" in the sense of "in addition to what has already been covered on this page", not in the sense of "better" substantively. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC) The arguments of deletionists in the matter of Category:Mononymous persons come down to three: Similar categories have been deleted previously. While the notion of stare decisis is often considered in decision-making, it is not regarded as absolutely binding. U.S. Supreme Court decisions long upheld the constitutionality of slavery, only to be overturned in the course of the American Civil War. There is, allegedly, nothing notable about mononymity. This is gainsaid by numerous commentaries remarking on the phenomenon as it occurs in polynymous societies, and moreover offering explanations for the phenomenon — explanations that indeed provide the common thread whose supposed absence some deletionists bemoan. If all mononymous persons were admitted to Category:Mononymous persons, this would create an unmanageably large category. This is unlikely to be the case, for only a few Javanese, for example, become prominent enough in the world consciousness to become eligible for inclusion — and such persons should be included in such a category. I submit that the deletionists have not made a convincing case against Category:Mononymous persons. The decision to delete the category should be reversed. Nihil novi (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Comment: Agreed. A general borderline deletionist myself, I'll happily welcome a convincing deletion argument when I see one. But I fail to see any in this CFD or DRV. In fact, I'd say that the deletion arguments are actually rather contrived and left-field when it comes to policies and guidelines, whereas the keep arguments are considerably more direct. For one thing, the deletionists never met WP:CON in the CFD. Second, they are ignoring reliable sources (!!!), such as The Guardian and The New York Times (hello, folks?) Third, they are inventing standards of category comprehensiveness, and then arguing that the category doesn't meet these standards, when a Wikipedia editing guideline states, about as clearly as can be, "Not all categories are comprehensive"! The deletion was, IMDO (in my deletionist opinion), absolutely improper. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC) The existence of reliable sources that discuss the phenomenon of using one name only in a poly-name culture establishes the notability of the topic. Notability is the standard for articles. It is not the standard for categories. Otto4711 (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Comment: O RLY? Well, that isn't what you said in this diff, in which you asserted the need for "reliable sources about what it means to use a single name." I provide these sources, and now you claim that sources are irrelevant? Ooooooookay. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Are you deliberately misrepresenting my argument at CFD or was it unintentional? My comment about reliable sources was in relation to your assertion of a link between fame and the use of a single name required reliable sources that are specifically on that topic of pursuing fame through the use of a single name, otherwise using the asserted link to justify the category constituted original research by synthesis. Otto4711 (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC) So it appears that it's not just the closing admin who made a mistake in interpretation. Maybe now we can all admit that mistakes in interpreting comments happen and that it's not a great reason to argue that an otherwise well-considered decision should be overturned. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Erm, mistakes in interpreting comments do not a well-considered decision make. A well-considered mistake is effectively an oxymoron. Deamon138 (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC) There's no evidence the closer did not read and consider the comment or even that he misinterpreted its meaning. All he did was a matter of mistaken attribution. He was mistaken about who made the comment and he was mistaken about the content of Nihil novi's initial comment (the closer thought s/he had simply said "keep", when in fact the comment that preceded it was his/hers). Please give this issue up. Learn to forgive. Move on. Pluck the beam out of thine own eye. I don't know how else to say it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Comment: In any event, notability is "the standard" for categories. I have provided sources to demonstrate that mononymity is indeed not trivial, at least for several individuals. It makes perfect sense to have a Mononymous persons category that includes at least these several individuals, although I would argue along with Nihil novi that it is also notable to defy social conventions in polynymous societies and go by a single name. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC) My sources (see way below) can be used in the same way to demonstrate that having blue eyes is notable. So when do we start Category:Blue-eyed people? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Comment: See my responses to you (i.e., the blue-eyes sources) and Occuli below. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Comment: Yes the closer made a mistake. Yes forgiveness is a good thing to do. I have done that. But forgiving it doesn't change the fact that if a mistake occurs, then the decision becomes suspect, and hence the deletion review i.e. the closer made a mistake in his verdict, so that regardless of whether this category should be deleted or kept, the decision should be overturned. Think about it: if you were the one on trial, and the jury/judge made a mistake when they decided to "delete" you, wouldn't you want a mistrial called, as the mistake puts reasonable doubt into the decision? Deamon138 (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Comment: Lol, all sarcasm aside, I'd say if we can't use reliable sources to establish the notability of a connection for a category, then what are we supposed to use to decide? How do we decide whether to keep a category such as Category:20th_century_philosophers if its connection is disputed, without reliable sources? Deamon138 (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Depends on what it is. Per WP:IINFO, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. You can find in The Guardian or even the NYT that Person A has blue eyes, but that doesn't mean we're going to have Category:People with blue eyes. Being a philosopher is defining, having one name is not. As for reliable sources, if you can't find a source to say someone is a philosopher, then you're probably adding original research and therefore shouldn't add the article to the category. --Kbdank71 16:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC) "You can find in The Guardian or even the NYT that Person A has blue eyes, but that doesn't mean we're going to have Category:People with blue eyes." Have you even looked at the Guardian article? Have you ever seen an article like that calling people with blue eyes "a select band"? It is not just an article about a mononymous person, it establishes the notability of the connection in the first paragraph. "Being a philosopher is defining, having one name is not." Yes I agree it is, but if someone proposed that category for deletion, then how does one assert that it is a notable connection? The answer is: reliable sources discussing the concept. And the same goes here. We have two reliable and respected sources showing the connection is valid. You would never get an article talking about "the blue-eyed brigade"! "As for reliable sources, if you can't find a source to say someone is a philosopher, then you're probably adding original research and therefore shouldn't add the article to the category." I don't think I or anyone else is talking about sources for the articles to go in the category. That is a given. The point is, you and others have the argument that it is a trivial characteristic. How can one refute that unless through reliable sources? We (well Cosmic has) have presented two such sources. If sources are needed to show a connection isn't trivial, then what is wrong with those particular sources? Deamon138 (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Nothin' in the papers about people with blue eyes that is comparable to the articles that have been provided, eh?: • Elizabeth Weise, "More than meets the blue eye: You may all be related", USA Today, 2008-02-05 • Ben Clerkin, "Why blue-eyed boys (and girls) are so brilliant", Daily Mail, 2007-08-20 • Douglas Belkin, "Blue eyes are increasingly rare in America", International Herald-Tribune, 2006-10-18 • Sheelah Kolhatkar, "The Blue-Eyed Predators", New York Observer, 2005-08-21 • Stephen J. Dubner, "Is Eye Color the Key to the White House?", New York Times Freakonomics blog, 2007-10-11 • Seth Mydans, "Oh Blue-Eyed Thais, Flaunt Your Western Genes!", Thai Sunday, 2002-08-29 So, based on the logic used for those who want the category, why don't we have Category:Blue-eyed people? In a few minutes' work, I already have three times as many articles about this than anyone's been able to produce about mononymous people. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Comment: Give me some cocktail party effect-style evidence (see my response to Occuli below) that blue eyes are as intertwined with identity and/or awareness as names are, and give me some evidence that people are defying some sort of folkway in order to change their eye colour to blue, and I will support such a category. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC) I think I proved my point. :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Comment: And I think I proved mine--I guess we'll just have to wait and see what other folks think. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Maybe we need to add something about using the cocktail effect and defying folkways to the guidelines to provide help in the assessment of notability. :) It gets a bit absurd — if I name my kid Dweezil and he becomes famous, can a category exist called Category:People named Dweezil? It's majorly defining after all — see the cocktail effect — and naming him that certainly defied some folkways (just ask his grandmother!). Or do we make it more broad: Category:People with names that are unusual and folkways-defying in their culture? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Comment: We already have a similar category, albeit under a more succinct name! It's called Category:Pseudonyms--and many of them aren't even that unusual! How odd that we should have a pseudonym category but not a mononym one! Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC) That's no good 'cos my kid's name is Dweezil; it's not a pseudonym. And he has blue eyes. Maybe we can get a quadruple-intersection category going for all his trivial characteristics that he has in common with other famous people ... (Jeez, I've really got the do this on the talk page ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Comment: I realize there's a difference between your example and a pseudonym; that's why I quickly changed my wording from "such a category" to "a similar category"--similar insofar as both Dweezil and many pseudonyms are further examples of self-defining and folkway-defying names--in this diff. Still, we're talking about people who have forgone last (or first, or whatever the case may be--as long as they're forgoing something) names in order to be known specifically by one name. And I still don't see how mononyms are any less valid than pseudonyms, for which a ctaegory already exists. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Except not all of them have forgone the name on a plain interpretation of the category. Many people only had one name. (Yes, I know, I know — you would like to limit it to those who come from cultures where mononymity it not the norm, but that's an added layer upon the category that only adds to its problematic nature.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Up above Good Olfactory said, "(Also: many of the "overturn" arguments above are focusing on other categories and their relationships, rather than this one. If their arguments are persuasive, this should not be necessary.)" Do you stand by that comment in light of all this about blue eyes, and Dweezil, that you raised? If your arguments are persuasive, this should not be necessary. :P Deamon138 (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Of course I stand by my statement. I think I already indicated that the comments were not necessary (see my comments about needing to take my comments to the talk page). They are totally unnecessary, but it was an amusing diversion for me to show how easily your arguments could be picked apart with a couple of minutes searching on google. Sorry if that troubled you, but come to think of it, it probably should have. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse - As Kbdank points out, being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This is a classic example of recentism and Western bias making a notable characteristic out of something which is nothing of the sort. The close was based on sound reasoning. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Comment: I'm as opposed to recentism as anyone else, and maybe even more than most, but I don't see how it is recentism to call Voltaire a mononymous person. Hillary? Sure. But certain others? Not at all. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Endorse - this seems an excellent example of a non-defining characteristic. Occuli (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Comment: I'm as strongly opposed to overcategorization (and to Western bias) as anyone, but names are inherently defining characteristics, at least for the individuals themselves (and at least in societies in which this has been studied). Our names are intertwined with our identity and awareness, as the cocktail party effect and plenty of other psychological evidence suggests. The fact that people change their names to mononyms means that they are defying social conventions and thereby altering a crucial aspect of their awareness and identity. They are deliberately augmenting an individually defining characteristic into a transparently social action, and that is the point at which, when notable people do this notable thing, it becomes of "encyclopedic" interest. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Names can be defining, having one of them is not. Bill Clinton is not less famous than Madonna because he goes by two names all the time, since both Bill and Clinton are very ambiguous. Further, the argument raised again and again by you and Nihil novi to the effect that since some mononymity is notable a category titled so as to cover all mononymous incidences ought to exist to cover those some instances that are notable is unconvincing. Until you get more support for Nihil novi's "principle" regarding inclusion/exclusion, you have no consensus for restricting the category to only mononymous persons in polynymous societies and since that is the only way in which it would be viable, it is clearly not viable unil you achieve such a consensus. This is why recentism and cultural (not even Western) bias apply. Srnec (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Comment: We can talk about reaching consensus on that later. The point is that, not only was there no consensus to delete, but--moving now from the WP:CON aspect of the close to the more directly argument-based aspect--this is (in principle) a very meaningful category, an argument that the deletionists and closer did not, by and large, acknowledge. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC) It is not a meaningful category because there is no meaningful connexion inherent between mononymous persons. What is the meaningful connexion between Charlemagne and Madonna shaped by their mononymity? There is none. This is because in Charlemagne's culture nearly everybody was mononymous: it was unexceptional. Charlemagne's mononymity is no more than a reflection of a cultural practice. Since Madonna's is exactly the opposite, the mononymity they share is not really shared at all. It's two different things which happen to look alike. This is what is meant by "not meaningful": the "meaning" (significance, implication) of mononymity in Charlemagne's place and time is totally different from that in Madonna's. Category:Physicists has been raised in this discussion before. This is a meaningful category. The connexion between all physicists is apparent: they study each other's work, they reference each other, they are influence by each other's work, their work altogether forms part of a single differentiated field and discipline of study. Being a physicist and finding two persons to both be physicists are meaningful. If I know that A was a physicist I immediately know something about A besides the fact that he is called "a physicist". If I know that B is also a physicist I immediately know things that A and B share besides "pysicist-ness". This is because "pysicist-ness" is broad and defining, full of implication. "Mononymity" is not. Hence knowing that two people both have only one name tells us only that they both have one name. Nothing more. And this, on its own and independent of culture, is not notable or even worthy of study. If you insist on injecting culture into it in order to extract meaning, you are violating guidelines on recentism and global perspective. Srnec (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC) What about Monica Bellucci and Émile Durkheim? Bellucci is a hot actress and Durkheim was one of the most brilliant people who ever walked on this planet. Bellucci is an agnostic and Durkheim was an agnostic. That’s the only common link between them. Bellucci is in Category:Italian agnostics and Durkheim is in Category:French agnostics. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC) What about this category or that cateory is not a persuasive argument. The existence of the agnostics by nationality category structure does not support the notion that this category must exist also. If you don't believe that agnosticism is sufficiently defining to warrant categorization, take it to CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC) I believe agnosticism is sufficiently defining to warrant categorization. I support both Category:Mononymous persons and Category:Agnostics. I’m trying to point out that even if one unique link exists between two people, it is worth highlighting that link. The only common link between Bellucci and Durkheim is that both are agnostics. The same goes with mononymous persons. The only common link between Madonna and Pate is that both are mononymous and that’s a unique link. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Category:Persons whose names begin with M? I think the policies/conventions/guidelines line up against you. Or, better, Category:Things. Srnec (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Srnec, you didn't read my above comments properly. Category:Mononymous persons is not equivalent to Category:Persons whose names begin with M because nobody would care if the name of Michael Jackson were John Mills, but people would like to know why the name of Madonna is just Madonna. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC) And would anyone like to know why the name of Socrates is just Socrates (not why it is Socrates, by why he has no other name)? You see, your view is mere recentism and lack a global perspective. Only when polynymity is the rule are questions raised about mononymity. And vice versa. And personally, I don't care why the name of Madonna is just Madonna. Srnec (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC) To dismiss the views of editors who are supporting this category as "mere recentism" is not wise. I think you should read the arguments of Cosmic Latte. You may not care why the name of Madonna is just Madonna, but many people want to know why. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC) "If I know that A was a physicist I immediately know something about A besides the fact that he is called "a physicist"." What is it then that you know about A other than "A is a physicist"? If all you know about A and B is that they are physicists, that is all you know they share. There are biophysicists and cosmologists; experimental physicists and theoretical physicists; liberal physicists and conservative physicists; witty physicists and dull physicists; Jewish physicists and African-American physicists; up-and-coming physicists and established physicists; controversial physicists and uncontroversial physicists; public-eye physicists and shy physicists; etc etc you get the picture. Physicists are as diverse a group as the Mononym brigade, so there is a great chance that there is no connection between A and B other than their career. I would be interested to know what connection, other than their "physics-ness", there is between say, Alfred Wegener and Georges Lemaître? Deamon138 (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC) I never said it implied that I know more than just their physicist-ness. I said that physicist-ness is "full of implication" (i.e. it subsumes other things within it). Wegener and Lemaître studied much the same stuff, their work is part of the same discipline: Wegener's chief theory and Lemaître's theory both undermined a consensus regarding the static nature of the physical universe. "Mononymous" has no implications. "Physicist" always does. That is the difference. And please note that Wegener is not in any physicist category. Srnec (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Comment: On the original CfD, the Guardian source was produced. The reason for this was that according to Otto4711, Cosmic Latte's comment "amounts to original research by synthesis." He said that, "To say that the use of a single name sheds light on the nature of fame, in the absence of reliable sources on single-named people and the nature of fame, is unsupportable." Well, the Guardian source was produced. The New York Times source was produced as well. These two sources show that Cosmic's comment about fame is backed up by two reliable sources, and hence the connection in this category is notable. Still, we are now told that we can't use sources to justify the category (I'm still not sure why). So how then does one justify a category? Is it okay for people to justify the Physicist's category with "The connexion between all physicists is apparent" (and the rest of that comment)? No. Because while it is obvious that that category should exist, if it HAD to be justified, the only way you could do it would be to appeal to sources. Which is what we have done for this one. Still, let's look at what WP:CAT uses for its criteria for category justification. Here's what it says: Questions to ask to determine whether it is appropriate to add an article to a category: If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it? If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article? Does the category fit into the overall category system? Categories that don't fit are often deleted. To familiarize yourself with the types of categories that routinely get deleted read Wikipedia:Overcategorization. If the answer to any of these questions is no, then the category is probably inappropriate. So the question is, is the answer to any of those questions no? Let's see: "Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it?" Yes it is. In fact it is more than possible, as we have the article, Mononymous persons, which is fairly well sourced too. That's more than a few paragraphs imo. Criteria one is satisfied. "If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?" Well, I don't know what was in the category originally, but as long as the reader knows what "Mononymous" means, then it should be really really obvious why Voltaire (or whoever) is in the category. So criteria two can be satisfied, and if the category is kept, I will make sure it is satisfied, as I'm sure other users of the category will. "Does the category fit into the overall category system?" Yes it does. Currently, the category is in Category:Names, and it seems to fit into that category (Mononymous names are names after all). Therefore, criteria three is satisfied. I would therefore say that since those three criteria are satisfiable with this category, then that alone is a good enough reason to keep this category, never mind the sources as well. Deamon138 (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Comment. "Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?" is the key question here. The answer is, "No, almost never." This is because only in some cases is it at all notable. In the case of Voltaire maybe, but then I don't know how much we would talk about the singleness of his pen name so much as the reasons for it. In the case of Plato his mononymity is unmentioned, as it should be. Srnec (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC) The vaunted Guardian article, which is offered to prove that there is a link between using one name and seeking fame, patently does not provide proof for such a link. It says in relevant portion "People who wear their fame with such confidence that they have dispensed with the B-list concerns of having more than one name." It does not say anything about a link between only using one name and seeking fame. It merely notes that some people have already achieved such fame, whether using one name or multiple names, that they are readily identifiable by one name. In the gay community (and possibly in the straight community as well, I have no idea), most people hearing the names Barbra or Judy or Merman or Liza are going to know who is being talked about. Are any of these people, who are so famous as to be identifiable, eligible for this category? No. The NYT article is about Hillary Clinton branding herself as "Hillary" for her campaign. It says nothing about her using a single name while becoming famous, because she didn't use a single name while becoming famous (she came to national prominence as "Hillary Rodham Clinton" and per the article only started branding herself as "Hillary" when she ran for Senate). SO the sources which claim to prove this link between mononymity and fame in reality do nothing of the sort and there have still been no sources that indicate that the alleged link is anything but synthesis. Otto4711 (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Overturn While the keep arguments were not great, the delete arguments were as bad or worse. It came down to "this is a defining characteristic" and "no it's not". In such a case I think you are stuck with basically taking a vote, and I see this as no consensus leaning toward keep. Hobit (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC) If anybody was arguing that mononymity is a defining characteristic without arguing that polynimity is equally a defining characteristic, they were being inconsistent. Yet though my three names (first, middle, last) may be defining, the fact there are three is not. I would like to see somebody take seriously the suggested creation of a Category:Polynymous persons if they seriously believe in this category. Srnec (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Isn't this like arguing we should have a category for those that aren't MLB players? It's rare, and it's something people are known for and it's something that is discussed (about those people) in RS. The Polynymous aren't. Hobit (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Have you been following this debate at all? I have been arguing precisely that the mononymous category is just as vacuous. People are not known for having only one name unless they live in a polynymous society. Not everybody has. See Plato, William the Conqueror, and Solomon. See WP:Recentism. Srnec (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Have you read the arguments of Cosmic Latte properly? It is unique for people who comes from polynymous society to have a single name. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC) No offense, but are you seriously basing your argument against this category, on the fact that it fails WP:Recentism, which is an essay, and clearly says at the top of the page, "This is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. You may heed it or not, at your discretion." Deamon138 (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC) No, I am not basing my arguments on an essay. Have you read my arguments? To Masterpiece2000, I have read Cosmic Latte's arguments. Have you read mine? I know it is unique for a person from a polynymous society to have one name, but it is also unique for a person from a mononymous society to have two (see John Crescentius or Henry Berengar). So why no Category:Polynymous persons? Srnec (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Comment: Perhaps because there's relatively little in terms of sources and/or academic/public interest to make polynymous persons stand out enough. I don't know. If we can garner consensus that Category:Polynymous persons would be a useful category, then so be it. I find it interesting, though, that the deletion arguments have largely concerned slippery slopes to categories other than the one (directly) in question: polynymous persons, people with four names, people named Buddy, people named Dweezil, etc., etc. Even the nomination for this category was a slippery slope, i.e., there was consensus to delete other mononym-related categories (an assertion that I don't even see verified in their CfD's, but that's beside the point), so there will surely be consensus to delete this one. That conclusion does not follow logically, and as the sheer existence of this DRV demonstrates, it needn't follow empirically either. No one is proposing the formation of categories that fly in the face of common sense (WP:UCS?) or WP:RS. We're simply suggesting that these things do apply to the existence of this category. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Comment To Srnec, I've read your arguments. Category:Polynymous persons should be created, if it could be demonstrated that a notable group of polynymous persons comes from mononymous societies. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC) To Cosmic Latte: I do not believe that most arguments have been of the slippery slope variety. Some have; and they are still good ones. Other are not slippery slopes at all, rather they are challenges that mononymity is non-notable in and of itself and it is not a significant connexion between two persons. To Masterpiece: Are Henry Berengar and John Crescentius not notable enough? What about the Trencavel, who adopted that epithet as a surname and the preferred name for those in the family whose baptismal name was Roger? Or what about the notable adoption of surnames by famous Italian families in the high and late Middle Ages? The Doria arose in a time single given names were still the rule. Or what about the apostles: Simon Peter, also called Cephas? Was his adoption of other names non-notable? Even then, in the generally mononymous Hellenistic culture of the eastern Mediterranean, the Gospels give the impression of a significant number of Jews using two names, but not most of them. Matthew-Levi? Nathanael-Bartholomew? Are these non-notable? And better question: do you think it would be hard for me to find a study of this use of more than one name among the polynymous first-century Hebrews? Srnec (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.