Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of repeated names

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. It appears that the delete !voters present the only policy based arguments. Per

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. v/r - T P 00:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

List of repeated names

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

No encyclopedic value because it is just a long, incomplete list. Does not satisfy

List of Australian repeated place names, List of tautological place names. Additional issue is that tautonyms are not reduplications, but the combination of a genus name and a species name that are the same. hence, they should be treated separately, as it already done with the other lists. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
t • c » 20:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With no policy or guideline-based rationale for deletion advanced, the nomination is ipse dixit
WP:IDONTLIKEITism. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Ha, thank you for pointing out that the only way to get junk removed here is by knowing exactly the policies and guidelines or that you otherwise will get a automatic keep. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're new to this, please see
WP:BEFORE which may help avoid further aggravation. Warden (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:IAR. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep It didn't take long to find an encyclopedia which contains a similar list - Pago Pago, Lulu, ack-ack, &c. The claim of the nomination that this material is unencyclopedic is thus shown to be false and
WP:LISTN is satisfied. Warden (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
So, you have shown that the Comic Encyclopedia mentioned repeated words. WP does that as well here in an article explaining specifics, just like the Comic Encyclopedia. Does the link you provide has a LIST of these names?-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See for yourself. I was wondering what technical terms might be used to described this phenomenon and now that you've given us reduplication, this opens up yet more sources for study. Reduplication contains lists of examples too. Our
editing policy indicates that we should build upon this, rather than deleting it. Warden (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
No, we have tautonyms and reduplications combined in a completely incomplete list, which if made complete is nothing more than a duplication of the already existing lists. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid duplication of other, narrower lists, this one can reference them, where they exist, so making it a list of lists. That would be ordinary editing — I'm still not seeing any pressing need to delete. Warden (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While one of the
WP:OR and verifiability issues as well. In the end, could the content be merged to tautonym? Perhaps, but such a list, which is too lengthy to be of value there, but is unlikely to ever be complete in itself and might have verifiability issues, does not seem appropriate. Note: the "list of lists" suggestion by Warden above seems feasible, and my !vote is not averse to that, assuming that the content of said target lists meets appropriate inclusion criteria. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The listing editor here, User:KimvdLinde, complains that the article is long, incomplete, and unencyclopedic.

If "long" is to be a reason for deletion, that would necessitate deleting half of Wikipedia, and if "incomplete" is a reason, then there goes most of the other half, leaving Wikipedia but a poor thing indeed.

As for "no eyclopedic value," I see from consulting the
American Heritage Dictionary (5th edition) and the New Oxford American Dictionary (3rd edition) that "encyclopedic" simply means "comprehensive." For example, the AHD cites a usage example from William James
, who once referred to someone who had "an ignorance almost as encyclopedic as his erudition." It is true that Wikipedia, like every other encyclopedia, is not comprehensive, but that is hardly a reason for making it even less comprehensive by needlessly deleting articles.

In any case, the article is of interest to readers concerned with linguistics or recreational linguistics and ought not to be deleted. Wahrmund (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page.
Stuartyeates (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Split into the articles that Kim mentions (and probably others) then make into a disambiguation page of repeated place names, tautonyms, repeated personal names, etc. This seems like a good compromise. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 08:45, 4 December 2011 (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.