Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aptronym

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 01:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aptronym[edit]

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

I used to like this article, but I now realize that it's excessive and hard to maintain. Most Books and Scholar search results I've found are simply a definition of the term or "there's a word for that" trivia, with little reliable, serious discussion on the concept. Relies rather heavily on original research with regard to determining whether a name is worth listing, and the list of "examples" is long, crufty, and unnecessary. There has been a tag to merge to Nominative determinism since February, with several fruitless discussions on Talk:Nominative determinism from years ago, and the two articles do heavily overlap in scope while neither of them has much useful content. Since there hasn't been any discussion on Talk:Aptronym about this, I'm proposing that this merge be carried out to salvage what little can be salvaged from Aptronym and delete it. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 22:28, 03 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 22:28, 03 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 22:28, 03 November 2015 (UTC) (Adding here because it basically is a list)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 22:28, 03 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Nominative Determinism, per nominator. Basically just a list of original research. fish&karate 12:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "aptronyms" have a different and independent history from Nominative Determinism, as evidenced by the article. The term was coined and collected separately in more commercial and direct publications, than academic texts with the off-putting more "scientific" name of Nominative Determination. It would seem to me, one is an amusing observation and the other is a silly theory. Not exactly the same thing, even if about the same observed phenomenon. JesseRafe (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JesseRafe. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and work on improving citations. KConWiki (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2015 (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.