Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buck (personal 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 no consensus. No clear consensus to delete the panda ₯’ 10:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buck (personal name)

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the entries qualify as given names. I've transferred nearly all of them to either the new (and much more extensive) Buck (nickname) or to Buck (disambiguation)#People. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but move Buck (nickname) to something more inclusive of given names and stage names, so that Buck (disambiguation)#People can be emptied of specific people. My goal with Buck (personal name) was to include given names, stage names, nicknames, etc. in one place, but it looks like "personal name" is largely synonymous with "given name". I can't think of a good all-encompassing descriptor though. Maybe the answer is to merge all the Buck people, including Buck (surname), to Buck (person)? —Swpb^{talk•contribs} 14:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think that's a good idea. Both Buck (nickname) and Buck (surname) are pretty long as it is. Merging them would make the whole thing unwieldy. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're not unwieldy if they're kept alphabetized. The goal of dab pages is to get the user to the page they were looking for as quickly as possible, and I think splitting the list into separate pages on the basis of a fairly fine distinction (given names vs nicknames vs stage names) gets in the way of that goal. If I were looking for a particular Buck, a longer list in one place would be the quickest to navigate. —Swpb^{talk•contribs} 19:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unless some masochistic sysop wishes to merge and redirect the mess left over. Go right ahead, guvnor. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Why are these lists and not dab pages?? Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lists (and set indices) are more focused. Dab pages wander all over the map with a variety of entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice this before, but these should absolutely be dab pages, not lists or set indices. All the entries have in common is that they are people - there's no common topic here. Precedence on disambiguating people by name is very clear on that. —Swpb^{talk•contribs} 19:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is contrary to

MOS:DABNAME, and there is (was?) an editor who has been diligently moving them off dab pages. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar

♔ 13:00, 23 May 2014 (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.