Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelsey (name)


 * 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Kelsey (name)
Delete as Wikipedia isn't a genealogical society. Gay Cdn 19:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm going to take the first sentence and put it on the disambig page. Yank  sox  20:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per the reasons I gave in Articles for deletion/Louis (name). Not as strong here since there isn't as much information and Kelsey is a significantly less common name. But the nomination reasons given for both definitely do not apply--as far as I can see, onomastic pages do not violate WP:NOT for genealogical reasons. HumbleGod 20:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Check out the Kelsey disambig page, I think it should work. Yank  sox  20:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, Vote change: Weak Delete since it's not a particularly common name. But for now I stand by my belief that onomastic articles do not violate WP:NOT in and of themselves. HumbleGod 20:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, and out of curiousity I did a bunch of random names, and most of them list the name and etemology on the disamig page. Yank  sox  20:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Those articles should be fixed to link to Wiktionary for those. As per Disambiguation, disambiguation articles are not dictionary articles. Uncle G 00:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They do. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  The etymology, translations, alternative spellings, homonyms, meanings of a word, be it a proper noun or otherwise, is dictionary territory. Uncle G 00:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as the name in question is not obscure, onomastic articles are useful and notable enough to remain on Wikipedia. JChap  (Talk) 21:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep needs rewriting. Danny Lilithborne 01:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. Articles on given names have no essential connection to genealogy. Fg2 07:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article contains etymology and alternative spellings of a word, in this case a proper noun. It is a dictionary article, plain and simple, mis-placed in the wrong project.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  As per Deletion policy/names and surnames, this content belongs at Kelsey, cross-linked from Kelsey to employ Wikipedia and Wiktionary in tandem, just as we have done, and continue to do, with other name disambiguation articles. Delete. Uncle G 00:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is a dictionary entry, suited to Wiktionary but not here. BlueValour 01:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Uncle G, dic def Jaranda wat's sup 04:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What Uncle G said. I'm not sure exactly what he's saying -- he said Delete, but also Wikify to Wiktionary, but also Keep as a crosslink to Wiktionary... it all sounds kind of consfusing but doing all three of these makes sense, if that's an option. Herostratus 19:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.