Khaleesi (given name): At best, a blurb can be added to the page Daenerys Targaryen if necessary.  The excessive provided sources state that Khaleesi and Daenerys became popular baby and pet names in response to the show, and that's it.  In addition, neither image has encyclopedic value (a random cat and a random model).  Overall, I am proposing Deletion of this article.  TNstingray ( talk ) 01:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To amend my original suggestion, this article is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK .  I am proposing a Redirect of this article and Daenerys (given name) to Daenerys Targaryen , using the information and sourcing to strengthen an existing article rather than diluting valuable information across three pages.  Neither name is notable in and of itself: they are intrinsically tied to the character, and such information should be listed on the character article.  I should note that the opposition is not rooted in policy beyond establishing that it is a notable fact that these are popular baby names; this does not warrant the existence of stand-alone articles in violation of WP:BADFORK and WP:CRYSTAL as established in the discussion below.  TNstingray ( talk ) 14:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oppose.  It is referenced and is clearly notable.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 01:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Subject appears to contain enough sustained WP:SIGCOV with which to pass the WP:GNG .  User:Let'srun 02:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG .  Also meets SUSTAINED with various pieces of coverage over many years ranging from 2014 to 2023.  — siro χ o 03:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It has sixteen proper sources (one with its actor commenting on the matter!) and the illustrations are proper; just because you don't like it , it seems like others do plenty.  Nate • ( chatter ) 03:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Fictional elements ,  and Science fiction and fantasy .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep contains enough WP:SIGCOV -- Tumbuka Arch ★ ★ ★ 12:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Why does the subject warrant its own unencyclopedic stub article rather than redirecting to a section under Daenerys Targaryen ?  That would greatly increase the value and conciseness of both subjects.  I honestly should have boldly converted the page to a redirect rather than nominate the article here.  TNstingray ( talk ) 14:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Once again, the article is about usage of the name, not the character, and it is referenced and very clearly notable.  I would object to a redirect too.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 15:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The usage of the name is exclusively derived from the popularity of the character.  All of this would better serve the article and the encyclopedia to add a sentence or two to the Daenerys article.  I think it is notable to say that the popularity of the character resulted in parents naming their kids after her.  But Wikipedia does not need a stand-alone article to accomplish this.  A redirect is a perfect compromise between unchecked inclusionist and deletionist tendencies.  TNstingray ( talk ) 16:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am opposed to a redirect.  It is referenced and it is notable.  Thus far, yours is the only vote in favor of deletion.  I'd add that I am an inclusionist.  There is absolutely no reason to delete articles that are cited and are of interest to readers.  But this particular article meets every possible criteria for notability.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 17:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I completely agree that the information itself is notable, but this is a WP:BADFORK , specifically a WP:REDUNDANTFORK that should never have been separated from Daenerys Targaryen .  The value of the encyclopedia would objectively strengthen if the minuscule amount of relevant information included in Khaleesi (given name) and Daenerys (given name) were added back to Daenerys Targaryen .  The subjects are 100% exclusively tied to the character, and should never have been separated into their own articles.  While I must assume good faith, it is possible that the voting majority just saw the sourcing without considering the subject material, part of a larger recurring problem with Wikipedia bureaucracy.  Imagine creating a separate page for "Frodo (given name)", diluting the encyclopedia rather than simply adding a sentence to Frodo Baggins to describe the character's cultural legacy, strengthening an existing article.  WP:NOPAGE At times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic) TNstingray ( talk ) 23:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My comments on the Daenerys article apply here as well.  This is an article about use of the name, not the character.  When several thousand boys are named Frodo and the name gets a front page story in national media, the Frodo name article can be created too.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 07:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand that you want to defend an article that you created.  But the names Daenerys, Khaleesi, and Frodo currently have absolutely no stand-alone value that warrants separation from the characters who inspired parents to name their children after them.  The argument you are using now is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL .  In these cases, the usage of a name is 100% entirely, exclusively, intrinsically tied to the character.  Such information should be used to strengthen the existing character articles.  Currently, the only worthwhile, policy-based argument for keeping these articles is that they have sourcing, which I am completely fine with using to support and strengthen an individual point in the Daenerys Targaryen article.  TNstingray ( talk ) 14:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree not because I created the articles but because the article is about the history and usage of the names, not the character.  Articles about names have merit in and of themselves.  i continue to oppose deletion or redirection for both.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 14:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Having both a Daenerys (given name) article and a Khaleesi (given name) article seems like a rather misguided approach to covering this topic on Wikipedia.  It is to my eye a pretty clear WP:NOPAGE situation.  I would suggest consolidating the information at a single page, whether that be the Daenerys Targaryen character article, an article about given names from A Song of Ice and Fire / Game of Thrones (or even popular culture more broadly), or some other article altogether.  It is uncontroversial that popular culture influences what names parents choose for their children, and creating separate articles for each individual example is not exactly a good idea.  I don't know that this is the best venue for discussing the issue, but insisting that a poorly-conceived article should be kept (as opposed to merged, or some other solution) because of notability is not particularly helpful and doesn't lead to the encyclopaedia improving.  TompaDompa ( talk ) 19:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I wouldn't object to a broader name article that discusses the general popularity of the names from Game of Thrones, since several of the referenced articles mention more than one name that increased in use because of the books or TV series.  i don't think deletion or redirection to the character article would be appropriate.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 21:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have copied text and sourcing from Daenerys (given name) , which is virtually the exact same text from Khaleesi (given name) , and pasted it into Daenerys Targaryen#Recognition and awards , visualizing what this approach would look like as a compromise between unchecked inclusionist and deletionist tendencies.  I should also comment that Khaleesi by itself already redirects to Daenerys Targaryen .  Consensus here demonstrates that the information itself is notable and should be kept, and as such I have amended my position.  I understand wanting to defend one's article, but one of our priorities as editors on Wikipedia is considering how best to help the readers understand it, per WP:NOPAGE .  It is clear to me that in this case, the way to do so is strengthening one article rather than separating out redundant information into two incredibly weak paragraphs.  To condense these conversations and respond to your last statement in the thread above, this article about a name does not have merit in and of itself; as I have already mentioned, any "history and usage of the names" entirely involves the character.  There is absolutely zero notability outside of the character, and as such, it should be listed there and redirect there.  TNstingray ( talk ) 23:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Daenerys Targaryen#Recognition and awards per WP:NOPAGE : "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article".  No compelling reason has been given to fork this content into its own article, especially two different ones.  -- Mika1h ( talk ) 17:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Notability is necessary but not sufficient for an article; where an encyclopedic article exists on a closely related broader topic, the need for a standalone page also needs to be demonstrated.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk ) 17:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : It may be worth noting that Khaleesi entered the list of the 1,000 most popular baby names in the United States in 2014 according to the Social Security Administration (you can search for it at the bottom of this SSA page ).  It 2014, it was the 758th-most popular name, and as of 2022, was the 662nd-most popular.  It peaked in 2015 at 550.  Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk ) 02:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That is referenced in the usage section of the articles and was one of the reasons why I created the article.  It has had some news coverage on the basis that it’s a top 1,000 name and has been consistently in the top 1,000 names for a decade.  Both of these are articles about names, why they are used and how many real people are called by them.   I think the statistics would appear out of place in the article about the character.  I’ve been creating categories over the past few months for different names.  For this one, I thought Given names inspired by popular culture was appropriate.  There are other names in this category that are now top 1,000 names and/or have a sustained history of use past the peak of whatever book or show influenced it originally.  See also Anakin (given name) and Renesmee (name) .  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 03:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would argue that neither of those warrant their own articles either.  There's a significant difference between an article like John (given name) with its lengthy historical and cultural context, versus a name recently created for a fictional character with notability that does not extend beyond the legacy of said fictional character.  The mere fact that parents have named their children after a character does not justify the existence of a separate article for the name itself.  I am all for strengthening character articles to reflect their cultural legacy, because we have not reached a point where the name has outpaced the character.  The articles for Anakin and Renesmee should follow the same precedent established at these AFDs for Daenerys and Khaleesi.  TNstingray ( talk ) 18:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We still disagree.  These are articles about names, separate though related to the character articles, and should be included under the related categories or a See Also.  They should not be merged or deleted.  We could spend the next week arguing these points, though, and I don't have the time.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 19:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Has gotten signifcant coverage.  It seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT Questions?  four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not the case at all, as my position is rooted in several policies, guidelines, and essays.  Assume good faith .  If anything, the preeminent "keep" argument is WP:ILIKEIT .  No one is denying the coverage or sourcing; the disagreement is where this information should be located.  TNstingray ( talk ) 15:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I still prefer that it have a separate article or that there be a separate article on Game of Thrones names.  it will look out of place to include statistics and some of the level of detail under the character article.  Bookworm857158367 ( talk ) 00:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Daenerys Targaryen looks fine with this information added.  TNstingray ( talk ) 13:18, 1 November 2023 (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: keep