Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/names and surnames

Concluded. Radiant_* 12:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good. I totally concur with your summary of our consensus, and I'm glad we had this opportunity to work on these issues.   [ +t, +c ] 21:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. What is the consensus here?  RickK 06:16, May 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if one were to consider it a vote, it would be an awful mess. However, reading the discussion, most people say things that correspond with Uncle G's neat summary of existing Wiktionary guidelines. Most 'keep' people say that it should be kept iff there's meaningful history etc to the name; most 'delete' people agree. The only exceptions are one or two people like Schmucky, who oppose the entire existence of Wiktionary, which is not really a helpful POV since its existence (along with policy that WP:NOT a dictionary) is consensual and well-established. HTH! Radiant_* 07:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * My main point isn't "wiktionary sucks", that was a response to Uncle G. My main point is: "all names are notable" and further that most names have history and etymology that are encyclopedic and go way beyond a dictdef. That's the core of the "keep" argument, methinks.  I think one thing everyone agrees on is that Wikipedia is absolutely not a general genealogy database. (articles like this: Kennedy political family, however, are notable, the genealogy debate goes beyond the scope of this discussion).SchmuckyTheCat 15:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry for misunderstanding you. But nobody disputes the fact that articles such as the one on the Kennedys are encyclopedically useful, precisely because they state historical information. But if an article only says "this is a name which means such-and-such" and there isn't anybody famous by that name, then it shouldn't be here really. Radiant_* 07:37, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I, and apparently others, disagree on that last sentence specifically, which is why the discussion occured. SchmuckyTheCat 14:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * True enough, and I've seen the relevant VfD debates. However, in this case, WP:NOT a dictionary is official Jimbo-written policy, and that pretty much trumps your disagreement unless and until you can get a sufficiently large group of people to overturn it. Radiant_* 14:11, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Does Jimbo say names are only dictionary definitions? I'm not aware that the page you're citing says that. SchmuckyTheCat 14:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * A proper noun is a noun. Thus, a name is a word. A definition of a name is therefore a dicdef. Radiant_* 15:13, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Have fun putting Empire State Building on VfD then. It's a proper noun, is a noun, is a word. SchmuckyTheCat 02:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Does the article explain only the name, or does it tell about a well-known structure by that name, and its architecture and history? (rhetorical question). Radiant_* 07:28, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to respond to this, I've been catching up with other things. Would you agree that there was no substantial objection to including etymological information on an otherwise legit disambig page? -- BD2412 talk 02:03, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
 * (copy/pasted from my talk page, since it's also appropriate here) Radiant_* 08:18, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say disambiguation is somewhat opposed, but I don't think anybody would mind if it's just a couple of lines. As long as it isn't a lengthy thesis :) Radiant_* 08:18, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * It should rarely take more than a couple of lines, as most names are either fairly directly derived from occupations, attributes, geography, or patronymics. I'd go so far as to suggest that any name for which the etymology is so complex that it can not be summarized in two lines probably has a strange enough history that it should have its own article. -- BD2412 talk 14:21, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
 * Added to point 5 on conclusions, for clarification. Your suggestion is probably true as well, although I'd be hard pressed to give an example :) Radiant_* 14:30, May 31, 2005 (UTC)