Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faizan

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faizan

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

Article written on Noun (Name). Please check validity. Thanks AKS (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – AFD is not clean-up. The nomination doesn't contain a valid rationale for deletion, per criterion listed at WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator seems unsure about the topic's notability, rather than advancing notions why the topic isn't notable. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the topic is non-notable because there's no indication of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources per the general notability guideline. All we have are entries in lists of baby names, more akin to directory entries than to significant coverage. I have doubts about their reliability, too - especially since they claim the same word means "flood", "ruler" and "grace" (Google translates it as "flood", by the way). The article's claim about the name's widespread use is not supported by the given source. Huon (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No, this article is not against any general notability guideline new citations are updated including a reference of book which consider as eligible source nominator should know AfD is not clean up.--Faizanalivarya (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Hello all, this article is that it is about "First name" and nothing else. If this is true then we can end up having millions of articles e.g. Ayush, Komal, Kirti, Aude, Jason...........list does not end. I cannot ascertain any reason as to why is this article necessary to be included in Wikipedia. Just because citations are available, it does not mean that a page can be created. AKS (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This AfD is about the notability of this particular topic, and not about hypothetical arguments about what types of articles Wikipedia may or may not possess or end up having. This !vote doesn't address notability of the topic itself. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scratched out !vote - you may not !vote twice, nominators may not !vote. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is a story behind every single name in the world. There are books that collect these stories. That should not open up the floodgates here, in my estimation. (An aside: can you imagine what a boon it would be to Junior High school vandals to have first name pages to vandalize?) This is a dictionary definition attached to a "list" of two with no logical connection other than sharing a name. Carrite (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm... would this be better if it was altered to be a disambiguation page to include the name meaning as well as a listing of notable persons with this as a first or last name as well as general things that include this name? I see about three articles that have this in their page title, so it could be usable as a name definition and disambiguation page. (Pages are Faizan R. Cheema, Faizanullah Faizan, Free Faizan Campaign, although the second needs some definite work on the article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Additional. I also want to emphasize that already have pages similar to this under the names Christian (given name), Lou, Mariko (given name), and Farid, all of which seem to serve a very good purpose as a disambiguation page. First name pages already exist on Wikipedia and there is at least around 700 or so pages (and that's just in the names I looked up above). They're already here and while I know that other stuff existing doesn't mean that this should exist, it shouldn't be an automatic delete just because of the potential of abuse.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep. It serves its purpose as both a definition and a disambiguation page for the name Faizan, plus there are several sources given.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ - This name is very much common in Asian countries and it also satisfied the all Wikipedia policies this article required more research on it and need bit citation which will be improved time to time or day by day therefore I would recommend to Keep this article on Wikipedia as its very useful for people who want to keep this name for their new born babies and I believe people love to prefer Wikipedia instead of any other search engine or encyclopedia book, or XYZ other resource.--Faizanalivarya (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One !vote per person only, please. The article says the name is common - but that claim is not supported by the given source. As an aside, Wikipedia is not a search engine. Not everything that produces hits in a Google search must have its own article. Huon (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-there is no valid rationale for deletion here. WP:Wikipedia is not paper and WP:OTHERSTUFF A412 (Talk * C) 02:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting rationale: Presently, I don't think there is consensus to delete the article, so I'll give this AfD another week of discussion. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keept it why delete when there is no rationale behind it.--maxman 00:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep I don't think we should decide keep/delete on whether procedure is exactly followed --the policy for that is NOT BURO. Though there was no deletion rationale specified in the nomination, it's OK to bring things here of they seem to need discussion: the assumed reason is "notability seems dubious" I've been doing that from time to time since my first year here, when something comes up where I can't tell and want other opinions. We can still judge by whatever might be given in the discussion. Normally, I think we do have articles on personal names, which we assume are notable if there are any sources, and I think there are for this one. Though ref. 6 is a primary source, I think it is usable for the purpose. Arunsingh16's argument that there might be many such names is irrelevant--the policy that deals with this is NOT PAPER. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

Comment - I might agree if there were any similarity between ref. 6 and the sentence it's used to support. And if it were a reliable source. As is, I don't think adding a random website to "source" a sentence suffices to make the subject meet the notability guidelines. Huon (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:N. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (of names or other words). To the extent the references are not broken links, they are only other dictionary entries (of unclear reliability); this is not the sort of coverage required for notability. Sandstein 19:06, 1 February 2012 (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.