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 no consensus. There is no one arguing that the material should be deleted, but neither is there a clear cut preference for keep or merge. This has run for nearly 3 weeks and I don't see an additional week here coming to a conclusion on any of the identified possible merger targets, and suggest this continuing at the Talk. Star Mississippi 02:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daenerys (given name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Page has been merged to Game of Thrones#Cultural influence, but redirect to their is objected against. I believe it makes more sense to discuss these names which are always discussed in the context of "they're popular because of GoT" either at the general Games of Thrones article, or at a (as yet not existant) spin-off article for the cultural influence of Games of Thrones (comparable to e.g. Cultural influence of Star Trek). The same applies to the nearly identical Khaleesi (given name). Fram (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fictional elements, and Science fiction and fantasy. Fram (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The name attracted significant media coverage, all listed in the references, and has been among the most used names from the series, which meets general notability. A stand alone article is justified for both Daenerys (given name) and Khaleesi (given name), which has been among the top 1,000 names for American girls over the past decades. Both meet notability requirements. This particular editor seems to be a “deletionist.” I am an “inclusionist” and believe articles that are properly referenced belong on Wikipedia. We have a fundamental difference of opinion on this as well as other articles. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your last three sentences have no bearing at all on this AfD, they won't change the outcome. Please don't personalise discussions. Fram (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • They do go to application of policy and when deletion is appropriate. The comments above are not intended as personal, just an observation that there is a difference in philosophy regarding articles of this type. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The name, as a name, meets GNG per sources already in the article. When the New York Times covers it, it's a pretty sure bet it merits a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point, but why split this from Khaleesi (given name)? One article about Given names inspired by Game of Thrones might be enough, and frankly, I am not sure this can be more than a WP:SUBSTUB. A paragraph in Game of Thrones#Cultural influence seems totally sufficient, at no information loss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As a matter of editorial discretion? I have no objection to that. As an enforced outcome from AfD? Nope. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Game of Thrones#Cultural influence, or at minimum, merge the two into Given names inspired by Game of Thrones, per my comments above - I am concernd that each name, sparately, does not merit a stand-alone article, and even if merged, the topic is just part of the larger theme, i.e., GoT's in culture. This is why I strongly concur that we do need an article on the cultural influence of Game of Thrones/Game of Thrones in culture where this should probably end up one day. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t object to merging it to an article called Given names inspired by Game of Thrones but I do think Cultural influences of Game of Thrones would be too broad. The latter would be better as a category. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Game of Thrones#Names, a new subsection under Game of Thrones#Cultural influence. Personally, and I don't think this is part of style guides in use, I don't think standalone name pages are in order until and if there are notable people who have the name have been identified. There are no notable people so named today for this name. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is already an unwieldy monster of an article, far too long. Subheads don’t really help. I could see Cultural influences of Game of Thrones as a category with separate articles on names, fan conventions, fanfiction, whatever else, etc. I disagree regarding standalone articles on names. I judge notability by widespread usage, media coverage, a sudden increase in use prompted by something like Game of Thrones or a celebrity, etc., as in the case of these two articles. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or Merge to a related target, either at the main article about the fiction, or about the character herself at Daenerys Targaryen. This substantially retreads the same material and we don't need a WP:CONTENTFORK to discuss the name separately from the character. They are one topic. Jontesta (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I still prefer to keep both articles as they are but an article called Given names inspired by Game of Thrones would be better if it is redirected. If you take a look at the references cited, multiple names from the series were noted as rising in use. Redirecting it to an article on the character doesn’t mention those other names. There’s also been news coverage of late of people with these names, including a missing child/possible murder victim named Khaleesi ^[1] and a child model^[2], just by doing a cursory Google search. Inevitably, some of these name bearers will be notable enough for their own articles and the name articles will qualify as lists/disqmbiguation pages as well as WP:GNG. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and oppose redirect/merge per Jclemens. Any discussion of a merge or redirect should happen outside of the AFD process through the normal editorial process.4meter4 (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, per WP:CONRED, AfD is an acceptable place to discuss contested redirects as well, no need to have that discussion elsewhere. Fram (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram, I am not seeing anything in that policy link that discusses merges or redirects. Did you mean to link something else?4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see C4 now which is above where CONRED appears on my screen. I would point out that the policy says "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own" as a proviso. This topic is important enough to merit an article on its own as sources pass WP:SIGCOV per JClemens cogent argument. Therefore a merge/redirect discussion for purely editorial reasons (because SIGCOV is met) shouldn't happen at this venue per CONRED. It's not AFDs role to have merge or redirect discussions outside of an WP:ATD situation.4meter4 (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree that a discussion about a redirect would have been far better at the talk pages of one or both of these articles instead of at AfD. I would likely start the article Given names inspired by Game of Thrones myself and ask for help in merging these articles to it as soon as this discussion is closed. The topic is broad enough to encompass over a dozen other names, all of which increased in use after the show. It should not be lumped in with other articles since the topic is distinct. I’m also not sure what good relisting it for a second week is likely to do. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I followed the reference at the Khaleesi article that is used to justify the existence of the article beyond WP:ONEEVENT, https://www.ssa.gov/oact/babynames/popularity_increase.html, and it doesn't show the absolute numbers, only relative ones, so it's hard to judge. The nearby entries in the same list are Adley which is a standalone article (a stub), Journey (given name) which is a standalone article (slightly larger stub), Elianna which is a redirect to a cognate and it's only mentioned in a list once, Ruth (given name) a standalone article for a comparably much older name, Shay which is a section in the disambiguation page list, and Ellis (given name) which actually says it's a masculine given name. So I don't think there's any particular reason not to proceed with the merge and redirect this there. If there's actual WP:POTENTIAL, it can easily be split back out later, when relevant encyclopedic information comes up. I'd say a single notable bearer would be a nice threshold (cf. WP:NNAME). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Again, I think an article or list or whatever on Given names inspired by Game of Thrones would make more sense than merging it to the article on the character or the show. This is the reference with an explicit breakdown of the Game of Thrones names and numbers: ^[1] Arya and Khaleesi are the most used but some of the others that were noted were Lyanna, Daenerys, Yara, Tyrion, Brienne, Jory, Sansa, Nymeria, Theon, etc. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This source doesn't necessarily attest to long-term significance of the concept as it appears to have been written at the height of the show's popularity in 2019. Did this trend have longevity? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The name Khaleesi is said to have risen in use last year by the Social Security Administration, which was remarked upon by media sources. According to the U.S. statistics, which give numbers for each name used more than five times, most of these names are all still in use but some declined after the show ended. The books are still widely read and the series has yet to be completed, so who knows? Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2022 (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.