Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owyang

Owyang was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

Stating that something is a common surname in some part of the world doesn't seem like it adds anything at all to the project. Shane King 13:35, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Surnames belong in wiktionary, imo. Transwiki and delete. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 13:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Actually right, there are plenty of Chinese surnames documented in Wikipedia, so much so that there's a category Category:Chinese family names for it. For its current state, it's more expanded than some of the other articles in the category. The only fault with it is that there aren't as many examples of names of people with it, but that's not the fault of the article, no? The wiktionary is meant for simple meanings of each word and not stating where it's found, how common it is, etc. Wikipedia is the place. (: —Goh wz 14:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• keep. agree with Goh wz. Posiduck 15:13, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• keep. People are tryign to delete things they have no knowledge of. If you don't know the topic, then refrain from putting it up on VfD without first consulting the article's contributors. I think that incorrectly putting up a VfD entry, given enough times, should lead to a loss of VfD template privileges for a time peroid. Spending 5 minutes asking the article's contributors saves days of time spend on here. --ShaunMacPherson 16:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't abuse people just because you don't agree with them. I'd suspect that he nominated it because surnames have been nominated in the past, and he didn't feel this article was notable enough, and I don't see this as being a nuisance or ignorant VfD, just a difference of opinion. Personally, I don't feel the need to duplicate Wiktionary, so if their collection of articles on surnames is better than ours, I'd be happy for things to be transwikied. If not, then as long as they're well written, and talk about the surname rather than being a genealogy, I've no real problem with keeping them. Average Earthman 17:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I'm getting weary of the boorish personal attacks that ShaunMacPherson has been making. Debate decisions, not people. No personal attacks. Geogre 20:04, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I said people which I think is sufficiently broad so everyone it is applicable to can get the message. On the other hand I do consider you calling my comments boorish more on the level of a 'personal attack', so you may or may not want to consider taking your own advice. Thanks, --ShaunMacPherson 02:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You need to lose this self-righteous attitude of yours Mr. McPherson. You have an opinion on things; I can respect that. Others have opinions on things; you seem to be unable to respect that. Wikipedia is a community of users. We all have our opinions and beliefs and let those guide us in our decisions. Yours are no more right or important than mine or anyone else's. When the community speaks on an issue, I move on. It may not be perfect, but it is the best we can do. If you cannot tolerate a website in which your beliefs are not always accepted by the community at large, start your own encyclopedia in which you have the final decision on all matters. Indrian 00:16, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

In the same breath that you tell me you respect my opinion, you tell me to lose my attitude. Which is it? I hear what you are saying, but do not dismiss my observation that people are putting up things on this VfD which they know nothing about. If anyone is in need of respecting other people's view points, I believe it to be you. As well my nick is ShaunMacPherson, you may address me as such. --ShaunMacPherson 21:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My comments above stand. Opinions and attitude are two different concepts and it is possible to have one without the other. I am not alone in believing you were making an unjustified personal attack when you did not, in fact, know the motivations of the nominator but assumed he was ignorant because his views were different from your own (hence intolerance). As a further note, I have not voted on this topic because I admit not being able to decide whether surnames should be kept or not, so my comments were not motivated by a difference of opinion with you on this issue or a failure to respect your opinion, so I do not know whence your final personal attack on me arises. Indrian 01:42, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

There's nothing to ask them about. If this had been an article about my own surname, which I certainly do know something about, I'd suggest it be deleted too. I'm not adverse to having an article on Chinese surnames, but having a seperate article for each individual one is way over the top, in my opinion. Shane King 23:30, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Additionally, the article is much expanded from when I listed it. Although I'm not going to remove my current listing, if it had been in that state when I first stumbled upon it, I probably would have glanced at it and not listed it. When you patrol the new pages listing and see dozens of substubs from anon users though, you have to make decisions as to what you think is worth wikifying and hoping will improve, and what should just be thrown away. I'm sorry if I draw the line different to where other people do, but isn't that why we have a vfd process rather than just deleting them outright? Shane King 23:41, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a geneaology site. --Improv 18:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • this article is not listing a bunch of obscure people from some obscure person's family tree. the history of a single and very common surname/clan is of interest to many. --Jiang 18:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This article does not attempt to provive genealogical information. Considering the number of people with Chinese surnames, and the number of English-speakers who know absolutely nothing about them, I would say that this is a useful article for us to have. If not, perhaps a List of Chinese family names (although looking at the Chinese surname article, that would be an enormous compilation)? [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 19:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Again, this is a matter of consistency. If we do have a category for Chinese surnames, then that's not really an argument about anything other than that someone created one. Surnames are surnames, just a name. We discuss people, not words, and history. I am no fan of surnames being in the Wiktionary, but I'm against their being in encyclopedia space. Geogre 20:04, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • read the article. there's more to a name. it's the history of how the clan came into being, legendary or historical. --Jiang 18:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Let's not have an article on every surname in the world. RickK 22:19, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • true, but this doesn't stop us from having articles on the most common ones if there is sufficient encyclopedic information. --Jiang 18:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. People are notable. Names are not. Mikkalai 23:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Let's nominate Yuan (surname) and Aisin Gioro while you're at it.--Jiang
• Keep: For around three thousand years surnames have been very important to Chinese society. Until around seventy years ago, clan associations and surname genealogies provided one of the strongest sources of identity to most Chinese. Even today, there are international associations based on people having the same surname. Chinese surnames are very different to Western ones so those unfamiliar with Chinese culture shouldn't judge according to Western standards. --Jie 00:03, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • If this is so, please educate us: write the corresponding article, so that his question would never reappear again, since there should be more of these surnames around. Also, if these surnames are important, why it is not seen from the corresponding articles? Mikkalai 01:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • In response to Mikkalai's suggestion, I have made a number of additions to the Chinese surname page, in particular the section "The sociological use of surnames". Hopefully it explains the importance of surnames in Chinese culture and justifies the existence of individual surname pages on Wikipedia. Individual surname pages are records of the "religion" of "ancestor worship" and can show the emphasis placed by traditional Chinese culture on ancestry and genealogy. They can also contribute to an understanding of migration patterns throughout China and to social structure. --Jie 09:48, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This provides encyclopedic (not definitional) information about the surname, such as the statistics on its frequency. There's no intrinsic reason to reject surname articles, although most are indeed useless - and, given that there are only a hundred-odd Chinese surnames, we might as well have them all. But move to Ouyang, to conform with Pinyin (and indeed Wade-Giles. - Mustafaa 00:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with Jie| Florescentbulb 00:49, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Sock puppet. RickK 19:10, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Grumble, lets go though all the votes and pages just to be sure I still exist. — Florescentbulb 04:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Merge into one Chinese surname site, subdivide into categories if it gets too unmanageable. That way you can find all interesting ones in one place, and a list of all the others without going to a bajillion pages. Munkymu 01:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • there's already a list at Chinese surname. --Jiang 18:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Current article provides encyclopedic information. I hope nobody takes this vote to mean I support any and all articles on surnames, though. — Gwalla | Talk 04:12, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, its encyclopedic not genealogical. —siroχo 04:22, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
• keep. relevant encyclopedic topic.--Jiang 18:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. older≠wiser 17:01, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 12:28, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. J3ff 22:15, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.