Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varma (given name)

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 delete. The short version of this is that I read the delete proponents as having having stronger arguments.

While there may be some WP:OSE going on here, that is not in this case a very strong rebuttal to keep arguments, as this is a call to how these pages in general are designed and created. Rather, the stronger arguments are that indeed there isn't enough content to reasonably fill an article page. Concerns about notability are valid and well-taken, as this essentially links to just one person and isn't a proper disambiguation/set-index. The keep proponents, while making good arguments, link to a number of guidelines, etc., of which none explicitly state there must be such a page. Rather, these reference materials (such as Wikipedia:Name pages#Content, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Minor differences) generally presume the existence of multiple names being listed, and in doing so undercut their utility as support for keeping this page. Although nobody mentioned it, I think the disparate sources of the given name and surname (Finnish and South-East Asian, respectively) would have made a good argument for keeping, and considered it as well when weighing the arguments here.

I don't read a consensus (or much discussion beyond two mentions) about what to do with this title (especially as regards Varma (surname)), so that is left to the editing community. If we end up with a more sizeable number of articles using this name, this should likely be revisited. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Varma (given name)[edit]

[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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor a directory of names. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 16:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 16:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia has loads upon loads of articles on given names, even unpopular ones. There's even a style guide specifically for surname/given name pages. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 17:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, and also this article disambiguates between Varma (given name) and Varma (surname). --vuo (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 23:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles on given names and surnames are a well established concept on Wikipedia. Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy and MOS:APO. The nominator's reason for deletion was that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor a directory of names". However, WP:NOTDICT specifically states anthroponymy articles as an aspect of Wikipedia: stating that "An article about a given name or a surname is an anthroponymy article that contains a list of people with this name as well as encyclopedic content about the meaning, etymology and history of the name." MarkZusab (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are hundreds if not thounsands of given name articles... but if the name isn’t notable then there’s no use. If only one notable person has the name that’s useless too. Also this article doesn’t meet the standards for name articles. Trillfendi (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable. Only very passing mentions in books. wumbolo ^^^ 13:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, no notable mentions via Google Searches either. ToThAc (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per User:MarkZusab and User:GN-z11. See WP:NNAME: a properly sourced article on a name - and this one is - can be notable without a list - but clearly no-one has bothered searching in Finnish. Alternatively, add the content to the existing Varma (surname) and call it Varma (name).Ingratis (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per User:Vuo , User:MarkZusab and User:GN-z11 and as per WP:PRESERVE , WP:NOTPAPER . Unoc (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As people have said above, the article meets WP:NNAME because it is properly sourced. The proposals to delete the article have not addressed the fact that the article meets these criteria. Alarichall (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The support for keeping the article either invokes that "other similar stuff alrteaduy exists in Wikipedia" or misunderstands what the relevant essay on the Manual of Style guideline is about. WP:NNAME deals with name articles and is quite clear: A name article usually contains either a list of entries that link to other articles or a wikilink to a list article. An editor above explicitly misuses WP:NOTDICT by suggesting Keep although the quote they're citing is also quite clear: An article about a given name or a surname is an anthroponymy article that contains a list of people with this name as well as encyclopedic content about the meaning, etymology and history of the name". Emphasis added. "As well as" means that both encyclopedia content about the meaning and a list of people are needed. In so many words, a name article without a list of notable persons has no place in Wikipedia, on the basis of WP:NAD and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The case for keeping the contested article is so weak as to be irrelevant. -The Gnome (talk) 09:49, 22 March 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.