Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daenerys (given name) (2nd nomination)

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 or more specifically there is a consensus against deleting the article but there is no consensus as between keeping as is, merging, or redirecting. That aspect of things isn't a discussion which needs to take place at AFD; it can be taken forward on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daenerys (given name)

Daenerys (given name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I am nominating this page for essentially the same reasons as Khaleesi (given name). The subject is not notable enough to be featured as a stand-alone article on the encyclopedia. At best, a blurb can be added to the page Daenerys Targaryen if necessary regarding its popularity as a baby name in the aftermath of the series. Due to notability concerns, I am proposing Deletion of this article. TNstingray (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To amend my original suggestion, this article is a

• Oppose. It is referenced and is clearly notable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Subject appears to contain enough
  New York Magazine and the NYT. Nothing has seemed to change from the last AfD. User:Let'srun 02:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Meets
  WP:GNG. Also meets SUSTAINED with various pieces of coverage over many years ranging from 2014 to 2023. —siroχo 03:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep GNG easily met and a proper stub. Nate • (chatter) 03:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, and Science fiction and fantasy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep contain enough
  WP:SIGCOV --Tumbuka Arch^★_★^★ 12:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Why does the subject warrant its own unencyclopedic stub article rather than redirecting to a section under Daenerys Targaryen? That would greatly increase the value and conciseness of both subjects. I honestly should have boldly converted the page to a redirect rather than nominate the article here. TNstingray (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about usage of the name, not about the character, and it is referenced and notable. I would also object to a redirect. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of the name is exclusively derived from the popularity of the character. All of this would better serve the article and the encyclopedia to add a sentence or two to the Daenerys article. I think it is notable to say that the popularity of the character resulted in parents naming their kids after her. But Wikipedia does not need a stand-alone article to accomplish this. A redirect is a perfect compromise between unchecked inclusionist and deletionist tendencies. TNstingray (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree and I am opposed to a redirect. It is referenced and it is notable. Thus far, yours is the only vote in favor of deletion. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that the information itself is notable, but this is a

WP:REDUNDANTFORK that should never have been separated from Daenerys Targaryen. The value of the encyclopedia would objectively strengthen if the minuscule amount of relevant information included in Khaleesi (given name) and Daenerys (given name) were added back to Daenerys Targaryen

. The subjects are 100% exclusively tied to the character, and should never have been separated into their own articles. While I must assume good faith, it is possible that the voting majority just saw the sourcing without considering the subject material, part of a larger recurring problem with Wikipedia bureaucracy.

Imagine creating a separate page for "Frodo (given name)", diluting the encyclopedia rather than simply adding a sentence to Frodo Baggins to describe the character's cultural legacy, strengthening an existing article.

WP:NOPAGE At times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic) TNstingray (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Still don't agree. The article is about the name and its usage, not the character. There are several thousand girls named either Khaleesi or Daenerys. As they come of age, some of them will undoubtedly have Wikipedia articles about them and be listed with the article as examples of people with the name. If and when there are several thousand boys named Frodo and the name receives significanr mainstream coverage, the article !Frodo (name) can be created. i oppose deletion of both articles and also oppose redirects. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you want to defend an article that you created. But the names Daenerys, Khaleesi, and Frodo currently have absolutely no stand-alone value that warrants separation from the characters who inspired parents to name their children after them. The argument you are using now is in violation of

WP:CRYSTAL. In these cases, the usage of a name is 100% entirely, exclusively, intrinsically tied to the character. Such information should be used to strengthen the existing character articles. Currently, the only worthwhile, policy-based argument for keeping these articles is that they have sourcing, which I am completely fine with using to support and strengthen an individual point in the Daenerys Targaryen article. TNstingray (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I disagree not because I created the articles but because the article is about the history and usage of the names, not the character. Articles about names have merit in and of themselves. i continue to oppose deletion or redirection for both. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Having both a
  WP:NOPAGE situation. I would suggest consolidating the information at a single page, whether that be the Daenerys Targaryen character article, an article about given names from A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones (or even popular culture more broadly), or some other article altogether. It is uncontroversial that popular culture influences what names parents choose for their children, and creating separate articles for each individual example is not exactly a good idea. I don't know that this is the best venue for discussing the issue, but insisting that a poorly-conceived article should be kept (as opposed to merged, or some other solution) because of notability is not particularly helpful and doesn't lead to the encyclopaedia improving. TompaDompa (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I wouldn't object to a broader name article that discusses the general popularity of the names from Game of Thrones, since several of the referenced articles mention more than one name that increased in use because of the books or TV series. i don't think deletion or redirection to the character article would be appropriate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied text and sourcing from

WP:NOPAGE

. It is clear to me that in this case, the way to do so is strengthening one article rather than separating out redundant information into two incredibly weak paragraphs.

To condense these conversations and respond to your last statement in the thread above, this article about a name does not have merit in and of itself; as I have already mentioned, any "history and usage of the names" entirely involves the character. There is absolutely zero notability outside of the character, and as such, it should be listed there and redirect there. TNstingray (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I still cannot agree to redirect it to the character article. A stand alone article about all the Game of Thrones names that rose in popularity and is categorized with appropriate Game of Thrones and name categories, maybe. Arya also rose in use and, to a lesser degree, so did names like Tyrion, Theon, Sansa, Brienne, etc., as mentioned in some of the references. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't warrant unique articles for the given names Tyrion, Arya, etc. If such a naming trend is observed and reported by reliable sourcing, that blurb of information can be added to the legacy sections of existing character articles. A stand-alone article about names does not exist yet (nor am I aware of one for any other fictional series, but I must respect

WP:WHATABOUT), so the best place from my outlined policy perspective for both Daenerys (given name) and Khaleesi (given name) is to redirect and strengthen the article for Daenerys Targaryen. After my recent edit at the latter, I must emphasize that the information from your articles are still present on the encyclopedia. TNstingray (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, but I still oppose deletion and redirection toban article about the character because these are articles about names. The reason I created these particular articles and not an article about

Khaleesi has ranked among the top 1,000 names given to American girls since 2014 and use has continued after the show ended. This is also why that particular name has had media coverage. The top 1,000 names list is one indication of notability. The other character names increased in use but are not in the top 1,000 and remain rare, except Arya (name), which has other origins as well. These articles both pass general notability guidelines and are sourced. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

We are going to keep talking in circles. I'm trying to explain the disconnect between what you think the articles are versus what the articles actually are. These are not articles about names. These are articles about the legacy of the character, and as such are

WP:BADFORKs. The name "Arya" warrants its own article because of the stand-alone historical/cultural significance outside of the fictional character. Neither Daenerys or Khaleesi are in the same category in the slightest. They were invented by G.R.R.M. and at the moment are entirely tied to the legacy of that character and universe. Neither are acceptable content forks. I am agreeing with you that the information is generally notable and sourced enough to include at Daenerys Targaryen, as I have already done. But the fact that 100 babies were named "Daenerys" in 2021 and 2022 (out of over a million baby girls born each year in the US) absolutely does not warrant its own article. I have provided numerous pages of policy and guidelines, none of which have been addressed. Your only rebuttal has been that the information is sourced and notable, which I have acquiesced and made the necessary changes to compromise between our opinions. TNstingray (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, we are going in circles. I simply don't agree with your stance and I am not going to. if you want to discuss a separate article covering all the Game of Thrones names under a Game of Thrones category, I am open to that Not to deleting these articles or redirecting them. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have moved past the deletion option. You have yet to respond to any of my points derived from Wikipedia guidelines, particularly

redundant forks. TNstingray (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I am answering; we just don't agree. I don't agree the appropriate option is to redirect it because the articles are about the usage of the names, including statistics, not the character. They're certainly related, whuch is why it's aporopriate to include them under the Game of Thrones category and a link to the article about the character and to other articles. The usage stats for each name are distinct, for one thing, and Khaleesi has greater use. There is an argument to be made for an article about the use of all the Game of Thrones names with redirections to that article frm the current Daenerys and Khaleesi articles. That had originally been suggested but never got done, for some reason. My main issue is that itshould be a separate article about the nams. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as per nomination. the name's notability is inseparable from the fictional character. Llajwa (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  WP:NOPAGE: "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article". No compelling reason has been given to fork this content into its own article, especially two different ones. --Mika1h (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Daenerys Targaryen as above. Mbdfar (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For what it's worth, I tend to agree that real people's given names are a fundamentally different topic than fictional characters that inspired the name, and don't think
  WP:NOPAGE applies in such situations. A good comparison here is Jessica (given name) vs Jessica (The Merchant of Venice). Despite the brevity of the prose at Jessica (given name), I don't think we would seriously consider a merge. —siroχo 16:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I think that's self-evidently not an apples-to-apples comparison. I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the real-world use of the name "Jessica" today is inherently a reference to the fictional character or that the real-world use of the name "Daenerys" today is not. TompaDompa (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so, pray tell? It's a name that is in use for thousands of real people, some of whom were named simply because their parents liked the name and not in reference to Game of Thrones. I've talked to some of the parents who chose the name on that basis, by the way, though I wouldn't include it in the article. The statustics are in reference to the name, not the character per se, and it's been in use for 15 years or thereabouts. Jessica originated as a Shakespearean invention based on Iscah but it clearly should have a separate article. Neither of these articles should be deleted or merged with the character article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • A fairly simple reason it's not an apples-to-apples comparison is that Jessica (given name) is a list article whereas Daenerys (given name) is not. The number of articles about notable real-world people with the given name "Daenerys" is at present 0, whereas the number of articles about notable real-world people with the given name "Jessica" is substantial. TompaDompa (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • The number of people named Daenerys or Khaleesi under the age of 16 probably accounts for that but I continue to argue that a name article is notable in and of itself and the references listed show it is notable because one ranks among the top 1,000 names and because there is a great deal of independent coverage about the use, history, image, etc. of the name. Statistics about how many people were named Daenerys or Khaleesi would be out of place in the main character article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Irrespective of the merits of this article, the comparison is a poor one as the situations are entirely dissimilar. TompaDompa (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

            Actually, not. They are both articles about the meaning, history and usage of a name, written in exactly the same format and including references to articles or books that mention them, just like hundreds of other existing name articles on Wikipedia. Eventually there will likely be notable people named Khaleesi or Daenerys who will be mentioned in a list linking to articles about them. Right now there are not but the number of articles written about people with the name makes it notable and warrants separate articles. They should not be deleted or merged with the character article.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

            In other words, you acknowledge that the situations are currently dissimilar, but you expect that they will not be in the future. TompaDompa (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

            That argument violates

            WP:FUTURE. Sure, there could be notable individuals years or decades from now named Daenerys or Khaleesi, but right now, there are not. The sourcing about people with the name makes the fact notable, not the presence of the article. The sourcing is derived from the popularity of the books, the show, and the character therein. As such, it would not be out of place to list this on the character's article as an extension of their legacy and impact on culture. That is a very different situation than Shakespeare originating Jessica five-hundred years ago. TNstingray (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

            ]

            No, I do not. I think both merit articles based on the notability of the topic — popularity, usage, and references discussing meaning, history, and usage. The name Jessica would also merit an article without a list of people with the name. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

            If Wikipedia existed in 1598, it wouldn't have. The name Iscah would have had an article, as well as Jessica (The Merchant of Venice). TNstingray (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge outside of its connection to the main topic, isn't much to say about this topic, per
  WP:NOTDICT. I don't see enough separate coverage to justify an article. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to
  WP:OVERLAP, a valid reason for merging. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. Someone closed this as keep and one of the editors involved in the discussion above,
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This should not be merged or redirected. Keep. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • (edit conflict) @Bookworm857158367: I don't particularly appreciate the insinuation on your part, and if you're going to levy implicit accusations of that nature against me you should at least ping me properly rather than adding it in a second edit so I don't get pinged. On the issue at hand, the "someone" who closed the discussion was 96.246.158.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but they signed it fraudulently as dunny830, who has been indeffed for years. This was one of several such closes by that IP, the rest of which have also been reverted by me or HJ Mitchell. The IP has also been blocked by HJ Mitchell. The reason I reverted the close was clearly outlined in my edit summary: "Revert apparent vandalism (close with fraudulent signature)." Kindly retract your implicit accusation of wrongdoing. TompaDompa (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC) Amendment after edit conflict underlined.[reply]

    I don't know that it is appropriate to keep or revert an AFD in which you have been involved in discussion. If nothing else, it gives the appearance of impropriety. I pointed out that you had done so but did not say you should face sanctions or had necessarily been wrong to do it. If it was a fraudulent account, someone did need to revert the keep move. In the future, perhaps it would be more appropriate for administrators or editors to only keep or delete or close AFD discussions that they have not been involved in. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Consider the revert done by me. It was done by an editor evading a block who did not have the standing to close an AfD anyway. The AfD should proceed (or not) as though the "close" never happened. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There is only the appearance of impropriety if you happen to see the revert in the edit history and don't look at the edit summary. I fail to see what reason you could possibly have to summarize the events as you did, without mentioning the edit summary that clearly explained that it was a case of vandalism being reverted, other than to imply some kind of wrongdoing. TompaDompa (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to belabor the point, but I'd still say it's probably not appropriate to revert a keep in a discussion in which you have been involved, even under those circumstances. You certainly could have called it to the attention of someone else and asked him or her to revert it. It does perhaps give the appearance of impropriety. It's maybe something to be aware of in the future. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, maybe. That still doesn't explain why you felt the need to call attention to it, nor why you would omit the explanation that you should have been aware of and thus give a misleading account of what happened. You had the perfectly cromulent option of leaving a message on my user talk page noting that you saw that I reverted the improper close and that you don't think it was quite appropriate for me to revert it even taking the circumstances into account. Why would you instead choose to misrepresent the situation by such a conspicuous omission at this much more public venue? TompaDompa (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Because I do think it was inappropriate but not something that warranted sanctions. I pointed out you had been involved in the discussion and reverted it. I didn't say anything else. But it's probably not worth further discussion. Regarding this one, I'd probably prefer redirecting it to Khaleesi (given name) over Daenerys Targaryen and improving on that article if the vote is to redirect. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Precisely, you didn't say anything else. That is to say, you neglected to mention why I had reverted it, even though I made it perfectly clear. Was that an oversight or was it intentional? TompaDompa (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    As anyone who cared to look would see the edit history, I don't think that is necessary. It wasn't appropriate, regardless of why you did it, because you participated in the discussion. But it's also not worth further discussion. I've explained and so have you. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not buying it. If anyone who cared to look would see the edit history, why would it be necessary to bring attention to it in the first place? We can agree to disagree about whether it is appropriate to revert obvious vandalism in a discussion where one is involved (even in higher-stakes cases involving the use of admin tools,

    blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion.), but what I take issue with is that you took the time to call attention to it but didn't bother to accurately represent what actually happened. By your own admission, you were aware of why I did it and deliberately omitted those details. Surely you see how that is actively misrepresenting the situation when you bring it up in a public forum like this? Stop avoiding the question and explain why you thought it appropriate for you to bring up obvious vandalism being reverted by an involved editor while only mentioning the "involved editor" part and deliberately omitting the "obvious vandalism" part, and doing so in a public forum rather than e.g. on the user talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    I'm not going to keep discussing this. I explained above and you've also given your thoughts on the matter. I still think it was inappropriate for you to revert when you have been involved in the discussion, regardless of why you did it. I don't think the reason is all that relevant, which is why I didn't include it. Anyone who wants to can look at the editing history and draw their own conclusions that I'm mistaken or you are, etc. It also wasn't worth a complaint or sanctions, etc. I still suggest you and anyone else avoid closing any topic you've taken a stance on or taken part in the discussion on for all the reasons I gave above. This is the last time I'm going to respond on this particular topic. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Very well. You either (1) don't understand that (A) the merits of my edit undoing an improper close tantamount to vandalism is a separate issue to (B) your initial comment on the matter misrepresenting the situation by conspicuous omission, or (2) don't care to attempt to justify your own actions. I suppose we'll leave it at that. TompaDompa (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    HJ Mitchell needs to know that Wikipedia is a public

    WP:SOCKSTRIKE, see block log. TompaDompa (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• Comment. As I said above, let's redirect it to Khaleesi (given name), which survived the AFD vote and is in the process of being improved. The two subjects are related and Khaleesi (given name) is the better of the two. Put an end to this with a Redirect and end the ridiculous vandalism on this page. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]