Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. N. Other
Source: 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 keep. Option to merge still available as an editorial decision. Petros471 12:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I may be off on this one but I can't find any verification for this and it's been marked as unreferenced for months (hence why I stumbled across it). If someone can find good refs, I'll withdraw. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know whether you'd consider my Cricinfo reference "good", but it's from a very well-known, long established website. Loganberry (Talk) 15:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only references I could find were on Wikipedia's mirrors. --Supermath 03:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not an easy term to search for. However, if you use this search, you get a number of hits for the phrase being used like this on the first page alone. Loganberry (Talk) 15:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I have heard it used, and I have found non-Wikipedia references to it on the web. e.g. Microsoft Encarta [1], Cambridge Dictionary [2]. I can see a lot of use of the expression using Alta Vista with the search string "a.n.other" -wikipedia to exclude the pages which mention Wikipedia — Google doesn't seem much good for this as it removes the punctuation. Jll 10:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are both dictionaries. I guess move to Wiktionary is an option but the entire rest of the article is unsourced. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am not sure either that there is enough to say about it for an encyclopedia article; but I didn't suggest that because there are articles on other common placeholder names such as Bloggs, John Doe, Jane Roe and Richard Roe and Tom, Dick and Harry. If it gets kept then the original research should go. Jll 11:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are both dictionaries. I guess move to Wiktionary is an option but the entire rest of the article is unsourced. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if sources can be found (which I'm sure they can with a little effort). This name was routinely used on pictures of credit cards and chequebooks in adverts for banking services in the UK in the 1980s and early 1990s. JulesH 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment MSN Search is better for finding this than google, because it doesn't try to be as smart and consider "an other" as a match.[3] JulesH 18:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete dict def, if not neologism hoax, perhaps a move to wictionary (if verified). --Darkfred Talk to me 04:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can assure you that "AN Other" (usually written, in the common British English way, with no punctuation or spaces between the initials) is a very common "placeholder" for sporting squads - eg "Squad additions (3): JN Smith, WT Taylor and AN Other". That sort of thing. I don't know how old the usage is, but it's certainly no neologism: I've seen it in newspapers since the 1980s at least, and it might be decades older than that. That takes care of "neologism"; whether or not "dictdef" still applies I'll leave to you. Loganberry (Talk) 16:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I still do not believe this article will ever be more than a dict def for a slang term. --Darkfred Talk to me 16:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can assure you that "AN Other" (usually written, in the common British English way, with no punctuation or spaces between the initials) is a very common "placeholder" for sporting squads - eg "Squad additions (3): JN Smith, WT Taylor and AN Other". That sort of thing. I don't know how old the usage is, but it's certainly no neologism: I've seen it in newspapers since the 1980s at least, and it might be decades older than that. That takes care of "neologism"; whether or not "dictdef" still applies I'll leave to you. Loganberry (Talk) 16:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article needs a lot of cleaning up, but the phrase is not at all uncommon in the UK - perhaps it's just not used (much, if at all) in the US? You quite often see the term used in cricket (because traditionally players are listed on the scorecard as initials and surname, eg I. T. Botham). Here is a recent example from Cricinfo, a very popular cricket website; I've added that reference to the article itself. Loganberry (Talk) 15:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Jll. —dustmite 02:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Loganberry. I have used the term myself both in the context of sporting competitions and staff planning schedules. From a UK perspective it seems as valid as say John Doe and there is an extensive Placeholder names page (I didn't know there were that many!). Nigel (Talk) 12:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Placeholder name--Peta 04:40, 19 September 2006 (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.