Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bika

Bika 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 to keep the article.

Non-notable surname. RickK 00:07, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Surnames are not encyclopedic. --Improv 15:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable surname. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 16:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Abstain for now. Can someone explain how/if a surname is considered notable?  Still kind of new here, and would like some precedent...  NiceGuyJoey 21:06, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * comment: Anthony is a known troll. Please don't take anyhting he does as policy.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 04:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Please stop the personal attacks. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 05:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Please. Anthony is a controversial editor with very strong feelings about how Wikipedia should be reformed.  He believes that we delete far too much and that we ought to have, and I hope he'll correct me if I misrepresent him, all articles that are not factually incorrect.  This is a far looser standard than the current deletion guidelines, and it is well beyond the standard held by most VfD voters.  Frustration on both sides has led and will lead again to sniping.  It's regrettable.  If it matters to you, past precedent has been that family names are not encyclopedic, unless they are families that are inherently dominant (e.g. the Churchill family and the various nobilities).  Whether the articles are transwiki'd to Wiktionary or not is debated. Geogre 05:16, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) (trying to be fair)
 * Delete. Geogre-I don't think we delete enough. The pages auxilliary to the Pokemon, Star Wars, Star Trek, LOTR, Magic (card game), etc. ad nauseum, phenomenons should be summarily deleted. --ExplorerCDT 01:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, this page is how we decide whether or not a surname is considered notable. I vote that it is. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 05:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * So, without using Google, you can think of, say, 3 famous Bikas? You had heard of the story of the family?  Its accomplishments are history in some way?  Geogre 20:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What would be the point of having an encyclopedia of just stuff I already know? anthony &#35686;&#21578; 21:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but the article could be expanded. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  21:18, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Surname substub.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 04:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Family names are not encyclopedic. No transwiki.  Geogre 05:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite. For example: list and link those famous Bikas. If they are related, explain. -- Toytoy 17:08, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * After reading this listing, I ran a search of my own name and was surprised to see it on a couple of Wikipedia articles, including a Latin version of it...! It's the same as an a resort area in the Calabria region of Italy and was mentioned as the birthplace of a couple of famous Romans.  One could write about the region but the name itself?  Uh-uh.  Wrong side of the line.  Delete. - Lucky 6.9 02:30, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Somewhat keep... weak keep... [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk) ]] 08:23, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rao Bika Ji was the founder of Bikaner and was the first of a dynasty of rulers named Bika. There are still people in Rajput named Bika. Right side of the line. Btw I don't have any special knowledge of Indian history, that's just what I came up with in 5 minutes of googling. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:21, 17 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.