Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ance (given name)

Add links
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 merge‎ to Anica. I don't see any coherent, P&G-based objection to the proposed merger. Owen× ☎ 00:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ance (given name)

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

Ance (given name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed. This name fails WP:NNAME and WP:GNG. Hardly any information or reliable sources found online. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Useful and referenced with several bearers of the name who could potentially be the subject of future articles. Expandvand improve articles; do not delete them. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Two of the redlinks were recently created and were immediately draftified for lack of sources demonstrating notability. Even so, it can always be recreated if articles about people with the name come along in the future. And what if an article can't be expanded? Like I said, I can hardly find reliable sources online. Being referenced doesn't mean much if the sources don't demonstrate notability. "Useful" is quite an arbitrary description. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There really is no good reason to delete instead of improving it or deleting it so someone else will have to come along and recreate it. The point of an encyclopedia is to expand knowledge, not to remove it from view. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Yes, to expand knowledge on encyclopedic subjects. I will try to convince you once again to read WP:NOTEVERYTHING, especially WP:NOTDICT. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This, as far as I can tell, is encyclopedic and has the potential to be improved. If it is not inherently wrong or unreferenced, an article should not be deleted. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply What's inherently wrong is that it's not notable. I can't find any reliable sources that contain information not already in the article. If you think it can be improved, why don't you do it? Your beliefs essentially go against the essence of Wikipedia, and all of your arguments have been ignoring rules. If you don't like the rules, you can try to change them elsewhere; they are valid as they stand. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I did elsewhere, I'll call attention to WP:IAR, a policy which also exists, and associated policies. I'd say that some of the policies mentioned here are getting in the way of maintaining a quality encyclopedia and are increasing the bureaucracy and probably having the effect of discouraging editing on what is supposed to be a free encyclopedia created by collaborative volunteers. There are likely ways to improve this article without deleting it altogether. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Notability is bureaucratic? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is pretty arbitrary as is, admittedly, my perception that it is notable and useful. If it’s factually wrong, of course it should be corrected or improved, amended, etc. . If someone just doesn’t think it fits the guidelines (which have never been set in stone), maybe someone should take a closer look at whether that guideline is actually useful. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply There may be some room for arbitrary-ness, yes, but I think these articles pretty blatantly fail the guidelines. I guess you're right that they've never been set in stone, but these ones have been used and widely accepted for some years now. AfDs aren't a roundabout way to challenged guidelines/policies either. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IAR and its related policies are also policies like the ones you’re quoting here and they are intended to keep legalism from getting in the way of creating or maintaining an encyclopedia. I assume we agree that articles that are unreferenced or are factually incorrect should be deleted if the information can’t be corrected and linked to reliable sources. We might disagree over what constitutes a reliable source as we do on notability, but that’s the standard I would say is set in stone. The information must be accurate. As far as I can discern, this article and the others you want to delete are indeed accurate and can probably be improved upon, which makes deleting them inappropriate under a reasonable standard. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Yes, we agree on the second part. Accuracy is set in stone, yes, but as is notability. Notability may be a bit more subjective and flexible, but it is a cornerstone of Wikipedia and current guidelines are generally community consensus. They could change in the future but that possibility doesn't make it appropriate to keep them now. On a side note, I feel like this page is getting butchered by the length of this debate. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Wilson. "At a glance". Yes, but commonness doesn't necessarily demonstrate notability. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IAR is also one of the foundational rules here and I would say deleting an article that could potentially be improved will get in the way of maintaining a quality encyclopedia. This is important enough to get right, regardless of the length of the debate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Yes, I agree that IAR is an important rule, but I don't find it any less arbitrary than notability; in fact, it is probably more so. As I've said before, improving an article is only an option if the subject is notable, which these subjects, when comparing them to criteria laid out by the project and approved by the community, I do not believe meet those guidelines. I am not a deletionist nor an inclusionist; I simply look at the rules and attempt to get people to enforce them, I do not discriminate against users, and I know hardliners who would have wanted many more of your articles deleted, but I do not. Wikipedia just isn't a collection of indiscriminate information, trivia or definitions. As I see it, we're at a deadlock. You wouldn't want an article made on every name in existence, would you? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I believe it would be a wonderful idea if the linked entries on the page will established individually as articles on En wiki.Alayyop (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would, but this is not the case. Geschichte (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, um, can someone maybe strike this down as a vote from a sockpuppet? User:Liz, maybe? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting whoever is reviewing this know that this vote should be discounted as it is from a now-blocked sockpuppet. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Anica, of which this is a regional variation (see Stuart Wilson (2015). Simply the Best Baby Name Book. p. 55. ISBN 1447265971.). There are a wide variety of names derived from diminutives of the classic Greek name Anna, including this one as well as Ancia, Anka, Anika, and Anicka. Information about these names can be presented in a single place, and, importantly, does not require the presence of a notable person with the name for the name itself to be notable. BD2412 T 03:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WilsonP NYC and Geschichte: Would the proposed merge satisfy your concerns? BD2412 T 03:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you proposing that all related names be merged? That would be a hard pass from me, as it would be more messy and verge on failing WP:SYNTH - just look at Anika which jumbles together names of different origin. Geschichte (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am proposing that these two articles, for which a source identifies a common name origin, be merged. This is rather the opposite of the situation with "Anika". BD2412 T 14:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you proposing something like what happened with Antė? My only concern is that it would be strange to just list this one variant without any notable people under the name, and there is not much information to merge here. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC) AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think much more information is needed. It is obviously a name in use, with a sourceable etymology connecting it to another name sharing that etymology. If not merged, I would opt to keep rather than delete altogether. The presence of notable people sharing an attested name should be of no more significance than the presence or absence of notable people living in an attested town. BD2412 T 03:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't necessarily agree with that last sentence but I don't feel like getting into all that right now so I could endorse a merge if we listed relevant cognates and variants, such as those aforementioned. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                • @BD2412. You were the one who brought up Anika. And are you sure that "Simply the Best Baby Name Book" is an ideal source? The name sounds somewhat frivolous. Geschichte (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Geschichte: I thought that as well, but in the introduction to the book, the author describes a meticulous and scientific process of examining names, and cites the work of other experts, so I am satisfied that despite the marketing-ready title, the work is sound. BD2412 T 19:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn’t be opposed to this, though I kind of agree with Geschichte, but I’m not sure that Anika is the best analogy. Anything is better than it being kept at this point, as it seems like this AfD may go towards no consensus. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it would be kind of awkward to just have Ance there unless we added more variants. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Relisting comment: There are a lot of options being put forward here, and I'm not seeing a consensus yet. Also, as a courtesy note, there is no need to bold the word "reply" each time one replies to someone else; the line indentation serves the purpose of indicating which comments were being replied to.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:48, 31 January 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ance_(given_name)&oldid=1204784951"