Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaan

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 as disambiguation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not a legitimate Dab, bcz there is no encyclopedic info on "Jaan" at any of the lk'd articles. Rather, the content makes the page a dictdef article, which should be transwickied to the wikt:jaan page at Wiktionary, where it has already been copied, and where part of it should be split from there into a new wikt "Jaan" pg wikt:Jaan. --Jerzy•t 17:20 & 17:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom & vote....
• Del. I was surprised to realize this is not speediable!
  --Jerzy•t 17:20 & 17:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  
• This article should not be deleted. I say there is a word in Urdu/Punjabi which is meant to describe power, or strength.
  --Street Scholar (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your word is not being doubted, but neither the fact that it exists nor its identity is encyclopedic. Its identity is lexicographic, which is why it's on Wikt:talk:jaan, waiting for someone to format it for addition to the accompanying dict-entry page.
    --Jerzy•t 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As nominated, there is no encyclopedic info that this points to. A soft redirect to the Wiktionary page might be acceptable but I'm not certain there's a point. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• change to a dab page This should be a dab page not deleted ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crucial Comment: The above user has dramatically changed the content of the page, which is not per se improper. It certainly is confusing to this process, so all who subsequently take stands in this process need to take note of it in weighing previous arguments.
    --Jerzy•t 07:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    
  • It may be i don't have time to say all i'd like to about the flaws of that claim, but it's still not a Dab page, it's further from being a Dab page, and it is not in any sense an encyclopedic article or list, nor capable of becoming so.
    --Jerzy•t 18:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    
  • I am aware that some supposed Dab pages exist, covering all the notable people with some particular given name in common. Until a well established consensus is presented that says such pages are encyclopedic, i consider it obvious that such pages are not Dabs, bcz they do not disambiguate: "Jaan" (as a pertinent example) would never be the title of a bio article on any of the people named "Jaan" who appear on the nominated page. IMO even lists of such people are unencyclopedic; the two consecutive sections Appropriate topics for lists and Lists of people both serve to at least suggest the logic for deleting such lists. (Another section, which i'll try to find again, focuses on criteria like Croatian atheist musicians, but has the same thrust, and may make the logic still clearer, in stating what it does not rule out.)

  As to the three titles at the end, if there were a Dab for "Jaan", they would not belong on it bcz there is no reason to believe any of them would be sought under the title "Jaan".

  That editor says

  I've dabbed that page properly now. As it is I think it is valid

  But their opinion on "dabbed ... properly" and "valid" should be disregarded, as they show every evidence of

  having no idea how a Dab page is supposed to be structured or what Dabs are for and

  in effect violating POINT, apparently trying to establish some principle about any old crap being able to pass AfD, and damaging WP, by

  1. dumping lks into the page w/o attention to the fact that Jaan Anwelt, Jaan Jüris, Jaan Kiivit, Jaan Raats, Jaan Raeaets, and Jaan-e-Mann (2006 film) are Rdrs duplicating (or in one case triplicating) adjacent or mis-alphabetized entries
  2. including in a list of 30 names of male Estonians (i.e. real people), the fictional character Tallinna narrid ja narrikesed#Jaan Tatikas, and
  3. lk'g him with the defective Rdr Jaan Tatikas (which needs to be modified to include the section specification)
  4. giving that task such shoddy attention as to neglect even such elementary matters as
     1. when adding something to a defined list of predicate nominatives (declared with "... may be:") not simply throwing an attempt at a sentence in as the new first item on the list, and
     2. replacing "Jaan, a common name ..." with "Jaan is a common name ..." (not with the word-hash "Jaan, is common name ...").

  Besides being wrong, they have not even made a serious attempt at presenting a valid argument.

  --Jerzy•t 20:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  

• Weak keep As Jaan is a "given name" (first name, Christian name) there are likely to be a large number of notable persons with this name. Therefore a page listing all such persons will become pretty unwieldy and not particularly useful. However this view may be at odds with the Manual of Style guidelines, especially on disambiguation pages which appears to say that it is fine to have a disambiguation page listing all the people with a particular given name. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy. Looking at the two articles for my given names: John does not contain a list (it was deleted in 2004), and David does list articles for people with the given name "David". -- MightyWarrior (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. But in no way would I object to deletion: There is no consistant practice with given names as dab pages across Wikipedia, nor is there one clear practice established in the policy/guidelines. Personally, I would default to keep - but certainly understand the impulse that such lists are likely unmaintainable. A statement from the closing admin would probably be helpful in dealing with similar cases. Pastordavid (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2008 (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.