Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodstrup


 * 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. Tone 15:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Woodstrup

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The page is an etymology of the family name Woodstrup. I proposed the article for deletion with the comment, "The etymology of a less-common family name is not inherently notable. The page cites no sources and has no clear indication of notability." PROD was contested by User:Woody62, who added an external link to the town of Vodstrup, Denmark, on Google Maps and another to the CV of someone called Bart Woodstrup. Neither counts as a reliable source for the etymology. In addition, etymologies are not typically included on Wikipedia. There is also no evidence that the family name comprises a notable topic. Cnilep (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Delete -- Without any reliable sources, it is impossible to claim notability or include this article in WP. The article argues against its own notability by stating this is not a long history name, few people have it. — Cactus Writer |   needles  20:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Cnilep (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.  —Cnilep (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —Cnilep (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Not notable. Someone could call it "fam-cruft", not that I would stoop to such a pun, but it'll just tempt people to do that until it gets deleted, so best delete it now. -- Noroton (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2009 (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.