116.50.78.71 (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. One (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitesh[edit]

This is just about an Indian name. No way it can develop into an article. Salih (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of the Category:Indian masculine given names scheme. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable enough, and lacks references. South Bay (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the Category:Indian masculine given names scheme which belongs on the Indian wikipedia. It's not a good English name like Robert or John. Scaldi (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went to post a comment about how this comment is inappropriate on Scaldi's talk page and found he's been blocked for sockpuppetry. We might like to discount his comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Special_cases. Why was this even nominated for AfD? Did you not look at category:Indian masculine given names? These articles are typically stub ones. Just because an article cannot be expanded does not mean it should be deleted. --GP Pande 09:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is it keep per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Special_cases? My understanding is that Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people) is only a guideline for naming convention; not for creating articles for "given names". Salih (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Read: First name only Example: Peter It is best to make it a disambiguation page in such cases. If information is added about the etymology of the name that takes more than a short introductory paragraph, it is better to make separate "description" and "disambiguation" pages, for instance: John (name) and John - in this case John (disambiguation) redirects to the latter of these pages. Jean only has a disambiguation page, but the introduction of this page links to John (name) for the etymology.

Does this not speak of how to maintain the pages titled after first names? If you click John do you not read about this English male name? Does this policy not speak of how differentiate, maintain and add information of etymology? Did you overlook the category mentioned above that contains 100s of such first name articles? Does this policy say these types of articles are discouraged?

What else you need to realize? I cannot do more spoon feeding than this. --GP Pande 19:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cool down. Please don't bombard with questions! If the name is notable enough it will surely survive the afd. Salih (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails to demonstrate how/why this name is notable. Perhaps could be speedied per db-nn? Ohconfucius (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, why would this be less notable than James (name) or Andrew? --Soman (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Common indian name, with many prominent Indian athletes named Hitesh, that would call for expansion of this disambig in due time.Pectore^talk 23:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't quite see the reason for keeping this. Punkmorten (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Surely an article can cover etymology, famous namesakes, etc. - Richfife (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--"This is just about an Indian name" is not a valid argument for deletion, WP:BIAS.--Jmundo (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2009 (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.