Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arpine

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arpine

[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)

Reason

No indication of notability... Little or no content. Basically a dictionary entry on a given / first name. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed as a part of new article curation / review process.North8000 (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, is just a set-index article on a given name. Most of the articles in Category:Given names are similarly short, e.g. Affif and Aigul. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the guideline for set-index article specifically says that it is a group with something in common besides the name.North8000 (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is extremely similar to most of those in subcategories of Category:Given names. In order to delete articles of this type, we would need a much broader consensus than in this discussion. b uidhe 15:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's just a routine given name list, no less acceptable than a zillion others. It is not a set index, so those criteria do not apply. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a standard given-name article. PamD 08:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question @PamD: @Buidhe: @Clarityfiend: On the face of it, presence of an article on this topic seems to violate both wp:not (not a dictionary) and wp:notability. With the wp:setindex argument being set aside the two keep arguments seem to be:

it is common accepted practice to have individual articles on first/given names despite possibly not meeting wp:not and wp:notability.
It is a list article, albeit not identified as such. In this case a lists of people with the same first/name (which seems a pretty un-wikipedian broad criteria). Or, in this case, all on the list are people with Wikipedia articles.

Could somebody clarify/comment on this? Are you saying that accepted practice is, in the case of a first/given name a looser interpretation of wp:not (not a dictionary) and wp:notability than following them literally? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally find many of these empty given-name articles to be unnecessary, as few users will look for people just by their given name (and if they are, they show up in the search box anyway). It has been my understanding that names are automatically noteworthy like WP:NGEO, but as you say, that's not really a part of any guidelines except maybe WP:SETINDEX and it is very close to being WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Thjarkur (talk). --SalmanZ (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although the rules are vague when it comes to name articles I've found name articles to be very useful for navigating Wikipedia, and i have referenced the name.(MoonlightTulsi) (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2020 (GMT)

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.