Pranvera: I cannot find reliable sources for this name and it is all WP:ROUTINE databases and baby name websites.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 19:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Lists of people , Lists ,  and Albania .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Only one person listed and that is too non-notable.  Georgethedragonslayer ( talk ) 10:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , Wikipedia is not a dictionary of names so fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE , and no current bearers of the name in Wikipedia per Special:AllPages/Pranvera .  Geschichte ( talk ) 10:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Improve and expand as needed, do not delete.  Comment Do you have any better argument to offer than "expand, improve, do not delete"?  And you forgot to sign your comment, User:Bookworm857158367 .  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 01:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Name articles should have origins and etymological information and listed references.  One notable person is listed with the name.  Expansion would logically include listing others as they are found and finding better references.  and listing others.  I did a search of the name and there are several other articles that list people or characters named Pranvera in passing, including at least one politician.  This strongly suggests that there are probably notable people with the name abour whom articles couldvand should probably be created.  I don't have the background knowledge to do this, but someone who speaks Albanian could.  I do not think the article should be nominated for deletion when references are listed.  As far as I know, it is not necessarily the responsibility of someone voting here to improve the article; just to note that it probably can be improved.  I know we have a difference of opinion on this subject in general.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 01:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply Except the person listed isn't notable and just "having references" doesn't prove notability.  I am unsure of the notability of the others with the name, but the article could be resurrected in the future if biographies are made; I myself have no experience in creating biographies.  Otherwise, we'd just be preemptively creating name pages because someone notable might come along in the future with the name.  And you should probably sign your comment.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 01:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That’s the disagreement.  I don’t see the point in deleting an already existing article that could be improved.  I do think having references that indicate the information is factual is reason enough to keep it around until someone comes along who can access the Albanian sources and expand upon it.  There is no particular urgency about getting rid of this particular article.  It provides information and what it says about the name is accurate.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 02:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply The only way I can see it being improved is by adding people with Wikipedia articles who have the name, and there is no way of knowing if any will be created in the near future.  I doubt there will be sufficient sources in Albanian if there is no WP:SIGCOV in English, though I cannot be sure.  In any case this stems back to the main problem of notability per WP:NOTEVERYTHING .  Urgency?  Maybe not, but Wikipedia is not a compendium of names and there is no point in keeping the article hanging around.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm going to suggest that people also take a look again at this particular policy: WP:IAR and related policies as I really think all the other policies being cited here are bureaucratic and have been getting in the way of maintaining a quality encyclopedia.  If an article is unreferenced or factually inaccurate, that's a reason to correct it and call for improved citations or to remove the incorrect information.  It isn't a great reason to immediately delete the article altogether.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 13:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply What I understand is that you are essentially saying that notability is bureaucratic and should be disregarded.  I don't think this debate is really going to get anywhere so reply if you wish but I may not.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 00:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Depending on the article and whether it is referenced and factually accurate, yes, I think it can be bureaucratic to delete it instead of improving upon it.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 04:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply In some cases I agree it can be bureaucratic, but that's not really what I asked.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 04:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, it really depends on the article.  Insistence on “notability” can indeed be bureaucratic and damaging to the encyclopedia  when it’s a subject where there is no real urgency about deleting it and the article might be improved upon.   If it is libelous or factually inaccurate or the references — i.e. the National Enquirer — are unreliable, then there is far, far more urgency about getting it gone right away.  I am an inclusionist, which means I am generally in favor of keeping articles and providing information that might be of use to someone, somewhere, and very much against deletion because the article doesn’t meet someone else’s standard of notability.  Wikipedia has become so byzantine in the past few years that only a small percentage of editors have actually decided that policy, One person’s trivia is another person’s useful.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 20:04, 21 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete