Talk:Hezza

message: This page is completely unencyclopedic. The first bit about Hessa could be added to Michael Heseltine, but who really cares. The rest is just a jumble of similar but unrelated nicknames. Every second bloke in Oz is called Bazza or Wazza or similar. This page should be deleted, but I'm not a deletionist, so I'm giving you a chance to make something of it before I put it to AfD. --Bduke 06:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a rather antipodean view. The form is an interesting phenonenon in the English press and there are several people, such as "Prezza" Prescott, who are well known by some forms. It is worth preserving these and does no harm! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.74.26 (talk • contribs) , at 09:11, 12 May 2006
Please sign your comment using ~~~~. I have no problem with "Prezza" being added to Prescott's article and so on. It has already been suggested that "Hezza" be added to Michael Heseltine's article. WP is not a collection of isolated facts. The "form", as you call it, is also an Australian phenonemon, but it is non-notable there and it is non-notable in the UK (which I do understand as I lived there for 40 years and visit frequently). --Bduke 08:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see anything inherently unencyclopaedic about this article, and it's not a collection of isolated facts. The idea that its being a common phenomeon makes it somehow non-notable is absurd. There is perhaps a problem with the title. Heseltine is by no means the best known example of the phenomenon, in fact no-one stands out to my mind as the obvious or original case. I might have gone for Gazza the footballer but he too is going back a few years. Links from the people concerned, and from the phenomenon of the Oxford '-er', will help to make the article easier to find. Flapdragon 10:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am open to being convinced. I prefer articles to be improved rather than deleted. However, I have to say I remain unconvinced that this phenonemon in itself is notable. I did not state it is non-notable because it is common. However, because it is common it will be difficult to determine who to include. More worrying is the title. Does this phenonemon have a real title. Clearly "Hezza" is not its title, nor is "Gazza". I might add that as an Oxford graduate, I have problems with the Oxford '-er' article too. It is a real phenonemon but it is'nt very important or notable and, again, its title is not good. --Bduke 11:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, though like Bduke I wish you'd sign your posts! (just add four tildes at the end). I don't see how anyone can really object to articles on phenomena mentioned by the likes of Partridge and Brewer. It's a linguistic phenomenon like any other, about which a perfectly sound and informative article can be written; if that kind of thing doesn't interest one then there are plenty of others to read or write instead. The charge of "unencyclopedic" is completely unsubstantiated. Because it is common it will be difficult to determine who to include? If there are a million people called John it doesn't hinder the normal process of determining which ones are worth mentioning. Nor incidentally do I see what being an Oxford graduate (I suppose I'd better own up to being one too) has got to do with anything. Flapdragon 17:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That seems to me like an improvement, as long as it's properly integrated with the disambiguation article that still exists at Gazza (not all of which is nicknames). Flapdragon 17:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)