Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O'Hay

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 Merge and redirect to Hayes. Note: There was nothing useful to merge. Deathphoenix 18:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

O'Hay
Name etymology; WP:NOT a genealogy database. Radiant_* 10:25, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge O'Hay into Hayes (which is currently a disambig page - this is a perfect example of a page that can be both an informative article and a disambig). -- BD2412  talk  13:42, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
 * Merge works for me. &mdash; RJH 14:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per BD2412, leave a Redirect to discourage this from being recreated as is. --Unfocused 16:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * A merge works for me as well. Don't forget to leave a redirect. Mgm|(talk) 17:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect, as Hayes would never be linked to or searched for under O'Hay. --Angr/comhrá 07:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Misses the point - someone may search for O'Hay itself, in which case they will find the information they seek under Hayes. -- BD2412  talk  15:32, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
 * No they won't. If anyone searches for O'Hay, they will be seeking information about a person named O'Hay, and won't be helped by a redirect to what is, for all practical purposes from an English speaker's POV, an entirely different name. It's as if I searched for Verdi, looking for information on Giuseppe Verdi, and found myself redirected to Green. --Angr/comhrá 06:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Hayes as above Hayes (surname), many Irish and Scottish surnames are variations on a theme. Redirects to the more common one are useful. --bainer 14:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


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

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 Merge and redirect to Gallagher. Deathphoenix 18:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

O gallachoir
Name etymology; WP:NOT a genealogy database. Radiant_* 10:25, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge O gallachoir with Gallagher - same logic as O'Hay, since I just turned Gallagher from a redirect into a disambig. -- BD2412  talk  13:42, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
 * Merge works for me. &mdash; RJH 14:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per BD2412, leave a Redirect to discourage this from being recreated as is. --Unfocused 16:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per BD2412 Stancel 00:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect, as Gallagher would never be linked to or searched for under O gallachoir. --Angr/comhrá 07:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Misses the point - someone may search for O gallachoir itself, in which case they will find the information they seek under Gallagher. -- BD2412  talk  15:33, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
 * Just as I said for O'Hay above, except it's even stronger here because O gallachoir isn't even spelled correctly. It should be O'Gallachoir for the partly anglicized version, Ó Gallchobhair for the Irish version. --Angr/comhrá 06:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, now they redirect to Gallagher, and the page explains the connection. If the information in the existing O gallachoir can be confirmed, there's no reason not to place it there as well. I am, after all, a mergist - all relevant information should be in one place, unless that would make the page inconveniently large. -- BD2412  talk  05:34, 2005 May 21 (UTC)


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

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 Merge and redirect to Yoder

Yoder (surname)
Name etymology; WP:NOT a genealogy database. Radiant_* 10:25, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Yoder - this is an example of a surname that can stand on its own as an article; if not kept, it should be merged into Saint Theodore, as it shows how his influence led to a surname created in his honor. -- BD2412  talk  13:42, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

keepphatt phaggotz (vote by 207.200.116.9 - something like 15 or 16 edits)
 * Keep &mdash; RJH 14:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all surname articles which are not disambiguation pages. RickK 16:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep &rarr; at least until the Names/Surnames debate is resolved. --Unfocused 16:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and rework and rename it to make it a disambiguation. The info is already there. Mgm|(talk) 17:09, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is? Where?  RickK 22:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * In Yoder, the disambiguation that already exists and that makes turning this article into a disambiguation pointless. MacGyverMagic is apparently advocating the existence of two separate disambiguation articles for "Yoder", duplicating each other. Uncle G 13:19, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
 * Yoder already is a disambiguation. Yoder (surname) is a disambiguation within a disambiguation, and as such is completely unnecessary.  It's effectively a section-breakout of the "people with the family name Yoder" section from the Yoder disambiguation for completely no reason. This can all be handled with a name disambiguation at Yoder, with the "list of Yoders" from Yoder (surname) merged in, and an interwiki link to a shiny Yoder article telling readers the etymology, alternative spellings, pronunciation, translations, and whatnot of the name, just like a dictionary article on a word should. Wiktionary and then Merge to a normal name disambiguation at Yoder. Uncle G 17:49, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
 * Comment - no reason it can't be both an article on the name history and a disambig at Yoder (with Yoder (surname) redirecting there). -- BD2412  talk  18:18, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
 * The history of the name is the history of the word, and belongs in the dictionary. The history of the people/places/things belongs in the encyclopaedia.  This is standard practice from many other name disambiguations.  The history of Darlington, the place, is in the encyclopaedia.  The history of the name Darlington, how it originated as a word, and how it was co-opted and its meaning expanded, is in the dictionary.  A with our spangly interwiki linking system, readers can pass back and forth from the one to the other. Uncle G 13:19, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
 * merge Yoder per Uncle G.  &mdash;msh210 21:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * keep or re-merge with Yoder article. There is "encyclopedic" information and history on the name, so I don't think it should simply be thrown away. As regards the "is not a geneology database" comment, why would the current article qualify as "geneology"? Should we reject information just because it is associated with a surname? I think there is plenty of room in Wikipedia for interesting aspects of various surnames without it becoming simply "geneology". &mdash; Greenmoss 22:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The list of people with the surname Yoder that has begun to grow qualifies the article as genealogy. And very little of the content of this article is encyclopaedic. How to pronounce the word "Yoder" isn't encyclopaedic, for example.  There's a perfectly good dictionary right beside the encyclopedia, that has holds written (and, in some cases where Wiktionarians have been really enthusiastic and uploaded sound files, spoken) information on the pronunciations of words. Uncle G 13:19, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
 * "The list of people with the surname Yoder that has begun to grow qualifies the article as genealogy" - so we should get rid of all the disambig lists of people sharing the same last name, because that's genealogy? Genealogy is not the study of people sharing a last name, but of the lines of ancestry and descent within a single family (see, e.g. Dukes of Swabia family tree). This article is clearly not that. It seems that a lot of people here are a) confusing geneology with etymology, and b) presuming that etymology is not a legitimate part of an article. Shall we scour wikipedia for articles that describe the origin of the word in question - such as River Thames, Florida, and Pantheism, and eliminate those descriptions as unencyclopedic? -- BD2412  talk  15:44, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
 * so we should get rid of all the disambig lists of people sharing the same last name &mdash; Try fewer straw men and more reading. Start with reading what I wrote below at the same time as the above. Uncle G 08:48, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
 * Whoa, let's take a step back here! What we're really discussing is whether the information in this article should a. be discarded, b. maintained in its current place, c. moved to somewhere else in wikipedia (presumably the Yoder article) or d. moved to somewhere else in wiki* projects (presumably Wiktionary). Consensus seems to be moving toward c. around here, and that's fine with me. What I really *don't* want is a., and I also don't think d. is appropriate, considering this isn't a "word" in the English language, with a definition, etc. An encyclopedia really does seem like the most appropriate place for it. Greenmoss 16:02, 21 May 2005
 * Merge with Yoder per Uncle G. --Angr/comhrá 07:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No need for Wiktionary now. A shiny new Yoder article now exists, written from scratch.  I note that some misguided editors are copying information that is already in Yoder into this article, in particular disambiguation information for places named "Yoder".  Aside from the fact that information on place names doesn't belong in an article that purports to be on a surname, the disambiguation is already at Yoder.  Trying to bolster this article by duplicating the disambiguation article is just plain silly.  We also appear to be growing a list of people with the family name Yoder, but who don't have encyclopaedia articles (or even redlinks from other articles).  That way lies a genealogy database.  The only content to merge into Yoder is the third paragraph, the only actual encyclopaedic content of the whole article (apart from the original family name disambiguation), on the demographics of people named Yoder, which fits quite snugly into a "people with the family name Yoder" section of the name disambiguation article at Yoder.  But for that one paragraph, my vote would have been delete.  Uncle G 13:19, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
 * ...which is exactly why I suggested merging Yoder (surname) into Yoder, the existing disambig page. The disambig is valid, and there's no reason on earth to exclude a few lines of etymology from it, especially where they might be useful to a person searching for information on their name (both in terms of what it means and in terms of who shares it). As an example, I recently did something similar for my own surname, 2412. -- BD2412  talk  05:24, 2005 May 21 (UTC)


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