Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bather

Non-notable surname article. How can something be Welsh/Pictish? The article spends most of its time talking about the region the name supposedly comes from. I deleted a description of the "family crest", since there's no such thing in British heraldry. No Google hits for "Thomas Samuel Bather" or "Thomas S. Bather", and what hits there are for a "Thomas Bather" are either genealogical pages, or go to a Thomas Bather Moore. RickK 23:03, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: 1) Wikipedia is not genealogy, 2) the "Vikings" didn't invade in 9 AD, but 900 AD, 3) the Picts are several different peoples, but the ones in England were northern and not Welsh. Geogre 00:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect - 1} Family name etymology is not genealogy, 2)Cleanup the article if the dates are wrong, 3)Cleanup the article if any other information is wrong. -- Netoholic @ 01:14, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * As an aside, some family name articles have become quite successful and encyclopedic - Chen, Weber - and can serve as very useful disambiguation pages. Don't delete, improve! -- Netoholic @ 02:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Here is the content, just so you can read it: "Bather is a Welsh/Pictish surname.
 * Family is predominatly found in and around the area of North Wales in the UK particualy Wirral near Chester, where they were apparently engaged in the border wars settling in Wirral a popular hide away with outlaws for many centuries. Also home to Brombrough, where a famous battle took place in 9AD against viking invaders.
 * Popular people with this surname:
 * Thomas Samuel Bather"
 * It isn't an etymology. The etymology is half a line.  Instead, it's where the people settled, where they live now.  It is, in other words, about the contemporary family's settlement patterns.  It is, therefore, genealogy, and that falls into one of the things that Wikipedia is not.  Please, though, do go on telling us that it's really an etymology.  Geogre 02:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * ALL of which can be cleaned-up. This page has potential, and should not be deleted just because of how it reads right now. -- Netoholic @ 03:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * How can it be cleaned up? What would you suggest?  RickK 07:30, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * If you're so interested in making it a useable article, which I doubt can be done, do you propose to do it? -- orthogonal 09:02, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Bather, and consider deleting Family name etymology. There is a clear precedent for removing articles like the former (Geogre's meaning is clear to me even if his wording was off), and if we let the latter article be, it'll eventually grow into a geneology thanks to otherwise well-meaning contributors.  I say we toss the can of worms back into the river.  Maybe geneologies would have a better home in the Wiktionary?  I'm willing to transwiki.  --Ardonik.talk 02:09, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. My inclusionist bias tells me that surname entries are both useful and encyclopedic. Davodd 07:21, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Out of completely no attempt at arguing -- what is there in this page that is worth keeping? RickK 07:23, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: inaccurate (see Geogre's comments), unverifiable ("apparently engaged in"), non-notable. -- orthogonal 09:02, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete unless completely rewritten from scratch. What is currently in the article is either unverifiable, of questionable accuracy, or inappropriate for Wikipedia. Average Earthman 12:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - do not rewrite - we don't need a book of baby names or a book of surnames as part of wikipedia - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  23:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)