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 delete. Those arguing to delete cited a number of issues. The most common complaints which could be traced directly back to policy included WP:BLP, WP:COAT, and WP:FORK. On the keep side, the most common argument was that this is well-sourced (which it does appear to be) and that it meets WP:GNG.

There's no particularly killer arguments on either side, so weight of opinion will rule the day here, with deletes outnumbering keeps by about a 2:1 margin.

As a purely administrative note, I'm concerned over what appears to have been a copy-paste fork of this into userspace. There was no reason to do that; I (and, I believe, any admin) would be happy to restore and userfy most deleted articles. The problem with the copy-paste is that it forks the edit history, and makes it very difficult to comply with our attribution requirements, should the userfied draft ever find its way back into mainspace. @ BD2412:, I encourage you to delete your copy-paste version; upon request, I'll restore and userfy the current article -- RoySmith (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

There is no preservable edit history in the deleted version. The edit history is already in the version in my userspace. bd2412 T 00:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Which is in turn because bd2412 userified the article by moving it (together with its history), on third-party insistence (see below). LjL ( talk) 01:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Names of Hillary Clinton

Names of Hillary Clinton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This is in no way a notable topic for a stand-alone article. This is a WP:POVFORK instituted by people who didn't get their way in the numerous page name debates that have happened for years over Hillary Clinton's article name. The article Hillary Clinton already mentions all of her various names, including birth name, maiden name, various names she used while married. There is no reason for this POV- WP:SYNTH mess of an article to exist. Jayron 32 16:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I have no opinion at this time as to whether it should be deleted. But I would like to mention that the main author, User:BD2412, ultimately prevailed (i.e. "got his way") in the page name debate at Hillary Clinton. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep, on the merits. The lengthy dispute over what to name the article only took place in the first place because this is an issue, and it is one that has received independent coverage in high-level reliable sources over a long period of time. The article is thoroughly sourced, and the specific topic is the specific focus of many of those sources. It is also a good outlet for the already lengthy Hillary Clinton article; rather than having this information crammed into a footnote and otherwise scattered throughout this article and a few others (like the Clinton e-mails article), keep it all in one place where those who are really interested in the subject can see it. bd2412 T 17:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• — Note to closing admin: BD2412 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. . Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

  Note to closing admin: if there is a consensus against having this article as it presently exists, please return it to my userspace so that I can revise it in accordance with the objections raised, and prepare its contents to be merged into the main Hillary Clinton article in the interim. Of course, consensus about the propriety of including a topic can change, particularly where there is a possibility that new information will become available in the future raising the profile of the topic. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

  Why ask this? Perhaps you would like the administrator to fetch you a pillow and a cup of tea as well? Put it in your userspace now, if you want it. Then the administrator is free to delete it without any aggravation. -- Scjessey ( talk) 14:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

  Do you think that would be appropriate in the middle of a discussion? Particularly one where there is not yet any clear consensus? bd2412 T 15:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

  It's totally appropriate, and following the discussion it seems pretty clear a closing administrator will delete the article. The weight of the "delete" argument is significant. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

  Very well then, I have done it per your insistence. bd2412 T 16:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The actual subject of the article (the names) seems to itself be notable enough, as the many references in the article show. The article certainly isn't a "mess" by any means, and I see no POV being pushed. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep it's well-written and informative, she's an extremely important individual, I assumed her middle name was Rodham, the nickname section is unique too. Raquel Baranow ( talk) 18:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • This article also replaces two l-o-n-g footnotes with a link to this article, see dif. Raquel Baranow ( talk) 05:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It's well-written, properly cited, and meets general notability guidelines. In fact, I plan to nominate it for DYK. Jonathunder ( talk) 21:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I'm not seeing anything here that wouldn't easily fit into the subject's main biography article. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 01:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The subject's main biography article is already 228,210 bytes. Do you think that article should mention, for example, that her middle initial was used in the transcript of her commencement speech? Or that her detractors call her names like Hitlery, Hildebeast, and Shrillery? bd2412 T 02:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not sure that derogatory insults against a BLP subject should be repeated anywhere at Wikipedia. If some book mentions that some random British soldier called George Washington a f**king piece of sh*t who scr*ws livestock, I doubt that's worth mentioning explicitly at Wikipedia even though GW isn't a living person. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 06:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC) reply
      • We are reporting documented facts in a neutral - and uncensored - tone. This is no different than the fact that our article on Bill Clinton has said for years that "opponents sometimes referred to him as "Slick Willie", a nickname which was first applied to him in 1980 by Pine Bluff Commercial journalist Paul Greenberg"; or that our article on Richard Nixon says "During this campaign, Nixon was first called "Tricky Dick" by his opponents for his campaign tactics". bd2412 T 11:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC) reply
        • Yes, but we also don't have an article named Insults for Richard Nixon. -- Jayron 32 13:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC) reply
          • We also don't have numerous reliable sources describing changes in the name used by Richard Nixon over his public lifetime. If there were, we could have an article on the topic. Please do not mentally reduce this in your own mind to an article on "insults"; they are noted for completeness, though the majority of the article discusses the very real issue of how middle names and maiden names are incorporated into the life of a particularly notable individual. bd2412 T 13:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC) reply
            • The issue is not the existence of reliable sources that give her various names. The issue is that the article relies on WP:SYNTH-type original research to turn disparate sources into making this a "thing". The problem is not the lack of sources, per se it's the use of sources to support a stand alone article on this non-topic. -- Jayron 32 16:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC) reply
              • We're not talking about "reliable sources that give her various names", but about reliable sources that discuss her evolving use of various names over time. If that is WP:SYNTH, then so is every article that discusses any phenomenon that has changed over time. bd2412 T 17:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Because any of those facts are worth singling out for mention in Wikipedia at all? Christ on a stick, I've occasionally used my middle initial in formal contexts where the use of a middle initial might be expected, without that fact meaning anything that would be worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article if I qualified for one — and the unflattering nicknames that my bullies or enemies might have called me behind my back (or to my face) wouldn't be worthy of note either. Bearcat ( talk) 09:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There are two relevant considerations with respect to this AfD: (1) Does this article pass WP:GNG and (2) does this article deserve its own page per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Here, the substantial coverage of this subject in The New York Times, The Boston Globe, NPR, and other sources (all of which are cited in the article) clearly satisfies WP:GNG's requirement for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Turning to whether this deserves a standalone article, WP:PAGEDECIDE specifically cautions against articles becoming "too unwieldy." The article for Hillary Clinton is already very, very long and merging the entirety of this article would make it far more unwieldy and lengthy. I think a much better option would be to include a very brief summary of the contents of this article at Hillary Clinton and then direct readers here with {{see also}} or {{main article}}. Consequently, I think we should keep this as-is. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 16:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Reluctant, annoyed keep. Newspapers and other sources have gotten ahold of it and won't let it go. Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete Variations of a person's name should be discussed, briefly, in that person's biography. Creating a spinoff article about a woman's use or non-use of her maiden name, and then tossing in discussion of vile insults directed against her, is in my opinion also vile. I am not a Clinton supporter but this is inappropriate, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Per WP:BLP, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented" then it's valid encyclopedic content. Derogatory names for Clinton may be well-documented, and may be relevant to the scope of this article, but noteworthy? Noteworthiness seems kind of subjective, and to me it's more than adequate to note that she has been called a lot of names, without doing the name-callers the honor of repeating their masterpieces. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Cullen328 and Anythingyouwant:, since your primary objection here seems to revolve around the documentation of derogatory nicknames, I have removed these. This still leaves, however, a thoroughly well-sourced 10,000 byte article. bd2412 T 12:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • My primary objection is to the strange notion that a woman's use or non-use of her maiden name or married name ought to be the subject of a freestanding encyclopedia article. My objection stands, though I am glad that the cheap shot insults have been removed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I appreciate the removal of the derogatory names, thanks. The strongest argument for this article is that it would allow removal of some stuff from the main Hillary Clinton article, which is way too big (or "badly bloated" as I like to say). So, it seems to me that the main problem with this proposed article is that the scope is too narrow, and therefore would only allow a little bit of stuff to be removed from the main HRC article. I hope that some thought will be given to broadening this article's scope in some way (maybe "Personal characteristics of Hillary Clinton" or something like that). As it is, an article about her names alone just seems too narrow. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. One, I don't think there is a problem needing fixing here. Longish notes are a feature of scholarly writing, and with WP's technology notes appear to the reader as mouse-over tooltips when reading the text – there is no need to click away and then click back and find your place in the text, as there is with a separate article. Two, I've looked at a bunch of "Names of ..." articles, and I find no precedent for this one. They are usually about scientific naming conventions, or different names for deities, or naming controversies based on national identities. I don't think a woman who has used different forms of her name after marriage – which is not that unusual – is really sufficient to create a new precedent. Three, the new "Nicknames" section is just an invitation for trouble, and its use of Edward Klein as a source is alarming. Klein is so vile that even many professional Hillary-haters have distanced themselves from him. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:BLP frankly WP:COAT. The fact that the article creator, an administrator, thought that we should have an article to devoted to trivial modifications to a name and such nuggets as someone, sometime, calling her "Hitlery" -- get it? -- is gobsmacking. Hasn't she also been called "that bitch" or "cunt" -- how did we miss that? It's forever going to be a POV magnet, and anything truly noteworthy about changes in her name should be briefly summarized in her bio article. And as noted above, there's nothing particularly unusual about women modifying their names after marriage -- or people in public life doing so, in general. Wikipedia is being used for WP:SYNTH here, to try to create a false impression that there is a notable subject here. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • "Hitlery" is no longer in the article. In fact, it was removed from the article, along with all of the derogatory nicknames, several hours before you wrote this. WP:SYNTH says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"; in this case, the propositions set forth in the article are explicitly stated, by multiple of the sources. bd2412 T 15:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, you removed that attack content as the result of this Afd process. The repellent has been removed; what we we are left with is the trivial. It's unfathomable to me that as an experienced editor and a sysop, you feel this merits a standalone article but hey -- it might survive Afd. It shouldn't imo. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:FORK and WP:BLP. I'm stunned this exists, quite frankly. Arguably, it's sexist to have an article ostensibly about whether or not a woman uses her maiden name as her middle name. Mentioning her Secret Service name is just a pathetic attempt to legitimize this nonsense. And this article will surely become a shit magnet for every unpleasant term Clinton is called in the future. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Scjessey: Is it "sexist", then, for Janell Ross of the Washington Post to publish an article focusing on this issue? Is it sexist for Joseph Williams of The Boston Globe and Ron Elving of NPR to do so? Is there sexism inherent in every journalist, male or female, who discusses this? bd2412 T 16:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Yes. It is sexist to discuss the use of a woman's maiden name. It is more than adequately covered in Hillary Clinton and there is no need for a whole article on the matter. Also, you don't need to reply to every single comment you disagree with. This is a common problem with you. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
      • We're having a discussion here. I just want to understand the degree to which the problems asserted with respect to the article are fixable. bd2412 T 17:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
        • It isn't fixable. The article is built entirely upon the synthesis of sources. No article of this type should exist on Wikipedia. -- Scjessey ( talk) 17:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
          • Well and the article creator will contest that SYNTH applies, as he did with me. But then WP:NOT#JOURNALISM isn't something fixable, either. Once the attack stuff has been removed -- if only for the moment -- does a handful of articles about variations in her name mean that we need a fork about those variations? You know my feeling on the matter. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:BLP. Is there a reason we have to have a page dedicated to what Hillary has been called? Leaving politics out of this, I wouldn't want this article for any BLP at all, regardless of their political affiliation, etc. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 15:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• keep WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST but there are numerous WP:RS who are discussing this topic. It passes WP:GNG on its own even if Hillary wasn't herself notable. More importantly, it lets us isolate some of this cruft out of the main articles. Also, some have raised tha rugment that this topic is sexist. That may be. but per WP:FLAT we do what the sources do, even if the sources are ultimately wrong. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Except it doesn't pass WP:GNG because it relies on synthesis to build a "name change" narrative. -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • This narrative is explicitly described in the sources. Nothing is implied from sources that does not exist in them. For example, the Washington Post article says:

bd2412 T 20:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Making her different from several million other women in the world...how, exactly? Or for that matter from the similar discussion that's followed Barack Obama, because he used to use his Indonesian stepfather's surname and/or shorten his first name to Barry, without occasioning a separate article just to cover that discussion? (One was tried. It got canned.) Bearcat ( talk) 09:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Agree with Bearcat. And artists often change names too – think of Prince (musician), who has a birth name, a stage name, an unpronounceable symbol, a formerly known as stage name, and a half-dozen aliases and pseudonyms, all of which has gotten more publicity than the HR/HRC/HC variations. That doesn't mean that having a separate Names of Prince (musician) article makes sense. The main biographical article is the natural place to describe any changes in the name of the biographical subject. Wasted Time R ( talk) 14:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• keep as per Gaijin42 and simply because it passes WP:GNG. What this major figure is called is a topic and its notable as verified by the coverage in major sources over a period of years. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Nothing about this topic requires a standalone article as a separate thing from her main biography. A fair bit of it is pure trivia of no note whatsoever (sometimes used her middle initial in certain contexts? who hasn't, and why should we give a honk?), some of it was actually inappropriate until that crap got correctly stripped, and the little bit that's actually noteworthy — her use or non-use of Rodham — is already in the main article anyway. Bearcat ( talk) 09:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is nothing but gobbledygook. There's no article titled Names of Bernie Saunders or Names of Donald Trump. It's oddly strange how Wikipedia professes ad nauseam that the gender gap is irrelevant to the site and then they create articles like this! -- MurderByDeletionism ^"bang!" 17:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Scjessey and Bearcat. The material in this page can easily be added into the content of the subject's main page. -- Enos733 ( talk) 18:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination and the comments of Wasted Time R, Scjessey, and Bearcat.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 20:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete per Bearcat. This is a non-notable POV fork. Graham ( talk) 02:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• KeepRedirect to where this is at issue in Hillary Clinton since apparently it is a thing some seek information on (and consequently some write articles about). Merge what isn't already there. This ought to include the "Shrillary" designation, since it's sparked conversation about whether a woman is called shrill for using a tone which in a man would be deemed forceful. Pandeist ( talk) 04:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • My mind has been changed by User:LjL; and by having read the news articles about this. It really is a thing with a life all its own. Pandeist ( talk) 04:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • But maybe a name change to Name of Hillary Clinton. We are not after all speaking of the Names of God here. Pandeist ( talk) 04:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • But if you're a pandeist doesn't that mean you think Hillary Clinton is partly god? LjL ( talk) 16:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - That you can say a lot about a particular detail of someone's life doesn't necessarily mean that the detail is notable -- it means that the person is very notable. There are any number of details about her life -- as with other celebrities' lives -- that one could write about, but, again, that there are sources about an aspect of someone's life doesn't necessarily mean it should have a stand-alone article. That the article is very long is not a strong argument to me in this case, as all that means is a very long section about her names is simply WP:UNDUE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep The topic is evidently notable and we have other similar articles where there's a complex naming history, e.g. Names of Ho Chi Minh City. While the topic is obviously split from the main article, this is not grounds for deletion as forks and splits are undone by merger not deletion, per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Andrew D. ( talk) 00:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:BLP. I am not seeing anything that would qualify this as a biography topic. I mean, everyone has alternate names, but I don't see any notable articles for those. Parsley Man ( talk) 00:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Hillary Clinton if feasible, or keep as interesting WP:SPINOUT. The fact she used a different name throughout most of her political career, and was "forced" to give in and eventually use the husband's name, is of non-trivial importance, and there is very little doubt that one can find many sources discussing it. The whole deal may be able to be summarized into something shorter and kept within the scope of the person's biographical article; if not, it should be kept. LjL ( talk) 16:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. LjL ( talk) 16:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is absolutely ridiculous. AusLondonder ( talk) 18:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

What I find absolutely ridiculous is that someone would think "this is absolutely ridiculous" is a valid explanation for a deletion !vote. LjL ( talk) 18:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Ridiculous is the kindest way to describe this article. Only in America would editors seriously think to spin-off a whole separate article noting that political opponents and lunatics had resorted to invoking a Hitler-based pun on someone's name or the fact they had a candidate had a different surname pre-marriage. Tony Blair's actual birth name is Anthony Charles Lynton Blair and sometimes political opponents called him "Bliar". You'd be laughed at if you spun-off an article about that. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Please take a moment to actually read the article, then come back and give us a little for detail about how ridiculous it is to spin off a side article describing the instances and frequency with which a notable person has personally chosen to be known by so many different name variations, keeping in mind the size of the primary article. Thanks. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Uncle Milty: Since you asked, I've read it again. Still absurd, WP:POVFORK, sexist and laughable. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply

@ AusLondonder: Since almost all of this article is drawn directly from content already in Hillary Clinton (see the first two notes under Hillary Clinton#Notes, and other references throughout the article); the primary exceptions being the summary quote at the beginning, the use of longer quotes from the sources quoted, and the accurate and thoroughly sourced section on nicknames. Is this material, as already included in Hillary Clinton, absurd? Sexist? POV? If not, then what is it about setting it out in a separate article than makes it so? bd2412 T 16:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep Well sourced article with a sufficient level of notability.-- ICat Master ( talk) 00:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• — ICat Master ( talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong delete per WTR, Shawn in Montreal, Cullen, Bearcat, Scjessey,and - I'm pleased to note, Anythingyouwant -among others. Many reasons: this is a classic POV magnet, trivia, sexist, and utterly unnecessary article. The main HRC BLP has long included a more than adequate treatment of this matter, appropriately centered in footnotes, and at an acceptable length. It is notable to include mention there, as has been for many years, because her name choices are of interest to readers and well sourced. That belongs in a biography. But it is not notable or needed to have a separate article in an encyclopedia devoted to it. There was no problem to be fixed. Tvoz/ talk 22:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. How anybody could think this is an encyclopedic subject is mind boggling. - Wikidemon ( talk) 12:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per arguments above. The small substantive information can and has been handled well enough by the main article. Bits about initials in slightly formal contexts or attack nicknames are unencyclopedic and unnecessary. Timrollpickering ( talk) 14:19, 17 February 2016 (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.