Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fewell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 21:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Scottish surname MacRusgail 13:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd said that, if we keep one article on a family name, we keep them all, regardless of notability. I mean, a person or even a family may be notable, but they do not make the history of the family name more notable than another. Currently, I think that there are short summaries of the origin of family names in disambigation pages of people, but I may be wrong. By the way, the article is good. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep genuine name in Scottishland, not a bad article, and frankly I'd rather have more of these articles and a lot fewer porn "stars". Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a notable name in Scotland at all. I live here, and have never come across it. It says "Southern Ports", but what does that mean? It could mean Dumfries and Galloway, East Lothian, Lowland ports etc. I'm also not keen on the porn stars (some do look good (some also don't), but not as article subjects) --MacRusgail 16:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an extension of wiktionary for names if it can't be kept here. - Mgm|(talk) 23:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unencyclopedic articles should not be kept, even if well written. Also, this would set a bad precedent for future articles. -- Kjkolb 00:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is there precent for deleting surnames? I know there is for keeping them. And no, I don't adhere to the view that cruft justifies more cruft, I just want to know. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there is a precedent. There are thousands of non-notable surnames. Every family researcher will be posting their ancestry back to Adam if we're not careful. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moesman (apparently a troll, the Moseman article was deleted). --MacRusgail 16:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is there precent for deleting surnames? I know there is for keeping them. And no, I don't adhere to the view that cruft justifies more cruft, I just want to know. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yesterday I wanted to investigate that, but had no time. Here is what I have found (actually, what Google has found):
- In the one for Rifai, the nominator RickK says “Precedent is not to keep articles about non-notable family names.”. Note also that the article Conlon is actually a disambiguation page. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 15:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Found something interesting, finally: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Policy_consensus/Conclusions#Names. The point is now whether there is a “significant history” connected to the name. I do not think so. Transwiki to Wiktionary Appendix:Surnames. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 15:28, 16 November 2005 (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.