Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayank

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mayank

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 23:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not a great fan of given name articles, but the editors who deal with them have come up with a simple notability threshold: if wikipedia has an article about two or more people with the name, then the name is considered notable (WP:APONOTE). Of course, this reflects the double nature of name pages as both giving information about the name and serving as sort of a disambiguation page listing the people who have it. There are a dozen articles about people with the name, so a list can be added (Dabfix could help with generating that). – Uanfala (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Now it does have a visible WP:RS, although given name articles don't compulsorily need one. We just need to have multiple biograpies of people with a particular given name. Also, deprodding isn't a valid deletion rationale either. In short, both of the nominator's good-faith rationales are redundant now. Everything else has already been explained by Uanfala. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (alternate: rename as a disambig or set index page) and Reply: Where did the information "Now it does have a visible WP:RS, although given name articles don't compulsorily need one" come from. WP:RS (a guideline) states " If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.", and also "In the event or of a contradiction between this guideline and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policies take priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy.". WP:V (a policy) states "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable.". Comments: Anyway, this single sourced BLP related "stub-article/list" would certainly seem better as a disambig page or a set index article. Otr500 (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles about names serve the dual purpose of providing information about the name and linking to articles about people who have that name. You need sources for the former function, not the latter. After NitinMlk's expansion, this article is already, to a large extent, a set index page, you don't need any renaming or further fiddling to make it one. – Uanfala (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otr500, firstly, as there is no primary topic here, there is nothing here to be renamed/retitled, i.e. adding "(disambiguation)" or "(given name)" to Mayank is redundant – see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC & WP:APOTITLE. And the page is already serving more or less the same purpose as a DAB or a set index page.

Secondly, as explained in the very first comment here by Uanfala, these pages work similar to DAB pages. So they don't require sources until we want to add some details of the relevant name/surname. Indeed, most of these (sur)name lists exist as a plain list of (sur)names, and there is a whole project dedicated to such pages: WP:APO.

Thirdly, one reliable source is enough for confirming something as non-controversial as the meaning of Mayank (मयंक), as this is very common Hindi/Sanskrit term, although English language online sources may be scant here. But still there are multiple sources available here, e.g. [1], [2], [3], etc.

Finally, as most of the existing name/surname articles are of the same nature as the above one, this discussion might affect huge number of other articles. So I've left a note regarding this AfD at the project's talk page. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uanfala, this meets WP:APONOTE. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets de facto standard as seen at Category:WikiProject Anthroponymy articles of articles like these that meet WP:APONOTE.—Bagumba (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid {{given name}} page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2019 (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.