Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with reduplicated names

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 keep. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 16:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with reduplicated names[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial list. The one thing these people have in common, is an absolutely non-essential aspect of them. It is not the reason or a result of their notability, but a tangential aspect, not more or less interesting than people with names of flowers (from Axl Rose to the three sisters from Keeping up Appearances) or people whose name is also a US state (Indiana Jones, Alex Delaware, George Washington). While reduplication as such is an interesting topic, the list adds nothing to it (with entries having "Note: these names are not reduplicated in the original language", you can't expect much linguistic theory about reduplication). Fails WP:NOTDIR. Fram (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator, it is a violation of the WP:NOT policy. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this list as there was some support for doing so in the discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 4#Category:Double names and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 11#Double double names names. There were valid arguments against categorising the biographies by this characteristic, but a list is acceptable. As for the parenthetical comment above, the list makes more of an effort to illustrate linguistic theory by separating the entries that are reduplicated in the original language from those that are not. The grouping by origin is a further attempt to illustrate the cultures in which this practice was more commonplace. (Note to nominator: please consider notifying the editor that created an article when proposing an AFD.) - Fayenatic (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does it illustrate linguistic theory? By separating American people from Australian people, Canadian people and Other British people? It doesn't illustrate anything, basically. (as for your note; it is a courtesy I disagree with in case of an AfD: it is a community discussion, where the creator of the article has no more or less a place than anyone else. We shouldn't encourage WP:OWN behaviour, nor skew the discussion towards people that can be presumed to be wanting to keep the article: so basically I never notify the creator or any of the main editors in case of an AfD). Fram (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an introduction with some linguistics, which I think demonstrates that the page has some validity and usefulness. As for WP:NOTDIR, I don't think that you have demonstrated that any specific paragraph of that policy clearly applies to this list, so as to require deletion. Nor does Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists point to a clear decision the other way. It's therefore up to editors to form a consensus as to whether this page merits retention. You would assist your case if you would demonstrate that a policy applies or is violated, rather than merely asserting it repeatedly. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section you point to in WP:SAL doesn't point to a clear decision the other way though: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category" (emphasis in original). No one has demonstrated how any of these people are notable for being reduplicated names, or are regularly given in reliable sources about reduplicated names. Reduplication exists, and some people have a somewhat or completely reduplicated name, but that doesn't mean that these people should be listed together anymore than people with some other characteristic should be listed together, as long as that characteristic hasn't been noted. The fact that the page is still unsourced, and that no one has provided any sources in this discussion either, is not insignificant. Peole have questioned my comparison to the list of names without an E, but I can call it "list of people with lipogrammatic names, and the difference with this list is...? Fram (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I can see both sides up to this point, but I don't think there's any particular harm in leaving it. And no I'm not referencing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I have seen some lists on Wikipedia that have survived AfD that were way more trivial and pointless than this is. At least the reduplicated names is conventionally interesting, even to someone with no linguistic background at all (myself in that category). Jrcla2 (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any policy based reason for keeping this. "Interesting" is good, but WP:NOTDIR is policy. Fram (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just read WP:NOTDIR. I'm not being sarcastic, but which number(s) are you referring to? Jrcla2 (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1, as explained below. Fram (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Chris!_c/t 20:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No policy-based argument made for deletion. List appears to be limited to notable entries. I could care less about it, but that doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTDIR is a policy. It is not because a list only has notable entries, that the list is about a notable topic. List of famous pop singers without an "e" in their stage name would also only include notable entries, from Lady Gaga to Jay-Z, but it would fail WP:NOTDIR.
  - I think your comparison makes little sense. Such names (those without an "e") are not unique in any way. Ten of thousand of people would fit under that category. And such a list would be a list of loosely associated topics. But reduplicated names are unique that not many people have them. This list is defined quite clearly that it isn't a list of loosely associated topics. I don't see how WP:NOTDIR is being violated.—Chris!_c/t 20:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is having no "e" in your name a loose association, but having a reduplicated name not? What has Tintin more in common with Robert Roberts (Christadelphian)‎ than with Lady Gaga (oh, Gaga, isn't that a reduplication as well?). Fram (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fayenatic's rationale. And because this is the sort of off-the-wall, but still rules-compliant, list that gives Wikipedia its spark.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not rules-compliant, it violates WP:NOTDIR. There are no scholarly (or even semi-reliable) sources that list some of these together or at first even glance even discusses one of them in relation to reduplication. Fram (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTDIR is quite irrelevant as that is concerned with the style of commercial directories like Yellow Pages. This is an ordinary Wikipedia list and links notable topics which have articles, so providing a useful index for navigation and browsing per WP:LIST#Navigation. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect. A useful index for navigation requires two things, and you ahve argue only for one of them. The list contains notable topics, agreedn but the grouping of them is based on a trivial characteristic. Fram (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incorrect. All that is required are wikilinks to the listed articles. A clear title help too and this one could use some work but that's just a matter of moving to something like List of people with double names. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Colonel Warden, for useful navigation, you need not only a list of bluelinks, but also a good reason to select this list of bluelinks and not another. Otherwise any page with 50 bluelinks would be, in your reasoning, a useful index, no matter how ridiculous or farfetched the selection. Fram (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - On the main page, you will find a random article link. For navigational purposes, this is functionally equivalent to a list of random articles. The community seems to think that this is a reasonable thing to have and so we do. The list before us here is not random, nor does it seem especially far-fetched. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a list about a notable topic; and I don't see how it violates WP:NOTDIR.—Chris!_c/t 20:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the topic "people with reduplicated names" a notable topic? Any sources for this? Fram (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People have asked for clarification about how this page would violate NOTDIR, stating things like "WP:NOTDIR is quite irrelevant as that is concerned with the style of commercial directories like Yellow Pages." Of course, that is not the section of notdir I refered to. It is #1, "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". It states "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic " I think it is quite clear that the entries are not at all famous for those reasons, and that they don't significantly contribute to the list topic. The fact that people without an "e" in their name is a common occurrence, while people with a reduplicated name is a more unusual occurrence, is of no significance if this hasn't been noted in reliable sources. Notable people with the vowel order "ueiee" in their name will probably return a rather short list (Bruce Springsteen), but none of you would argue that keeping it would be good. Fram (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sole rationale for deletion is that it is "trivial"? Which is a pure matter of opinion here, and I do not consider it so trivial as to warrant deletion. Nothing else needs be decided on such an AfD. As this is no more trivial than many other articles (I know otherstuffexists does not count, but it does show where the "trivia" line has been drawn in the past) List of people with surname Weeks as an example, I find the default to Keep is reasonable here. Collect (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As explained further in the discussion, it violates WP:NOTDIR and lacks sources about the topic of the list. List of people with surname Weeks is a disambiguation page, which this one isn't. You are likely to find a reference to someone named "Weesk" without mention of his first name. It's a typical thing with a specialized article, like "He succeeded Weeks as mayor of Windsor", where the reader may want to know more about this "Weeks" but doesn't know that it is about Bert Weeks. Such disambiguation pages serve a clear purpose for the encyclopedia, making the disctinction between articles which could be confused. No such argument can be given for this list. Fram (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Which deals with my weighing of "not sufficiently trivial" untouched. This is a matter of weighing the article on a "trivial" scale, and I find it to pass the test. You, apparently, do not. Collect (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - What do you make of the lack of sources for the topic? Fram (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2010 (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.