Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karlovich

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. (non-admin closure) Northern Escapee (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karlovich

[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)

After I removed all the entries that refer to Karlovich as a patronymic and not as a surname as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandrovna, the page only lists one person, to which it should be redirected instead. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karlovich is also a very plausible Anglicisation of the names Karlović, Karłowicz and Carlovich (the name of Tomás Carlovich) – hey, you can even view them as the same surname just spelt differently. I would much prefer if it these are prominently linked from the page Karlovich, whatever other content it may have – this will not work if we leave it to the search engine. Also, the Ukrainian chess player might currently be the only person with this surname we've got an article for, but this will sooner or later change (there are potentially notable people like ru:Карлович, Владислав-Фома Михайлович or ~~ru:Карлович, Владислав-Фома Михайлович~~ ru:Карлович, Антон Михайлович). – Uanfala (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uanfala: The two linked pages on the Russian Wikipedia are the same. Is that intentional? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 06:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  - Ooops, corrected. – Uanfala (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Keep. I don't believe there is any requirement to include more than one example name-holder on a surname article: retaining this stub makes it easier for an editor to expand it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No difference than the other list. The other list show who has the name as their first name, or as their last name, and those who have it as a nickname, and even fictional characters. I don't see any reason not to list those who have this as their middle name. Dream Focus 21:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that's not a middle name, but a patronymic. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the difference is what exactly? Its part of their name, and its in the middle. Dream Focus 21:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - A person is basically never referred to by their patronymic, so it is very unlikely that a reader searching for this is interested in any of the people with this patronymic. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: that is an incorrect statement in Eastern Europe, where all these names come from. I had to refer to all my teachers and fellow students by patronymics, even if they had to be invented. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: I meant that the patronymic is almost never used exclusively, and never in formal contexts. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, 1234qwer1234qwer4. While I admit my knowledge base on this is from college Russian classes and not first-hand experience, I was taught that patronymics are much more likely to be used in formal contexts. Is that incorrect, in your experience? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're right that patronymics together with the given name are much more likely to be used in formal contexts, but referring to somebody as "Petrovich" or "Karlovich" means you're probably quite close friends, so an individual patronymic is very unlikely to be seriously used by a reader to search for a notable person. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per all above. Setreis (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Karlović as a spelling variation of the same name. BD2412 T 19:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument that there is only one name rests on a fundamental misconception. It is very possible that a person is known by their patronymic and not their full name and that would be how a user would search for them. It is therefore a valid disambiguation page and should be retained. There are already "See also" links between the various spellings so I don't see the need or utility for mergine or redirecting. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Mind providing an example? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:56, 27 January 2021 (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.