This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Conclusions

Note that this is mostly a re-iteration of WP:NOT, and Wiktionary procedures.

An article on a surname is encyclopedic if the name has significant history to it, other than genealogy and etymology.
Articles on surnames are useful as disambiguation between articles between people with that surname (or as a redirect to one such article).
If an article title is also a name (e.g. Joe, Smith), then obviously that should be pointed out in the article.
The first point applies equally to first names; the second applies in principle, except that famous people are rarely identified by their first name.
It's fine to add a couple of lines of etymology to an existing article (or disambig), but an article shouldn't solely consist of etymology.
Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, an article that is only about a word (such as a name) is not encyclopedic. The appropriate action would be moving it to Wiktionary, or adding a {{move to wiktionary}} template.
See Wiktionary Appendix:First names and Wiktionary Appendix:Surnames.

Attempted consensus

Sometimes, a group of similar or related articles is nominated for deletion over a short period of time. In cases like this, it seems prudent to have one centralized discussion about the entire group, rather than repeating arguments over each member thereof. This is an attempt to forum consensus on one such groups of articles.

Names and Surnames

Lately, a number of vfd's have involved either first names or surnames:

My opinion is that widely used first names and surnames are inherently notable, and should have articles discussing their derivations and variations; and that less widely used first names and surnames generally belong to name families that are notable. I would welcome any suggestions as to a policy for dealing with these. -- BD2412 ^thimk 00:22, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

I agree that widely used names are inherently notable. Any about which there can be an encyclopedia article should have one. But "articles discussing their derivations and variations" belong in Wiktionary, not on Wikipedia. (Notability, while necessary, is insufficient.) —msh210 03:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We would probably agree that we don't need individual articles for the following list of last names: Fabbri, Lefebvre, DeSmedt, Covaciu, MacGabhann, and Skmiton... but all of these are featured in the Smith (surname) article, because all of them are variations of Smith, or words derived from the same root in different languages. I'd like to see a lot more articles like this, (if not by derivation, than by region) and I suspect that some of the names listed above would fall into them easily. -- BD2412 ^thimk 03:24, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Careful there. Surnames like MacGabhann (MacGowan) should redirect to Smith, Smith (surname), or Smith (clan) (Clan Smith) [1]. Adraeus 03:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents#Names, including the italicized notes. —msh210 00:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Names/surnames should be kept

Properly researched and documented surnames belong in Wikipedia. They are documentable, and each has a history and an etymology that is both notable and interesting. As proper names, they don't belong in a dictionary, but as words defining specific groups of people with common histories, they definitely belong in Wikipedia. --Unfocused 00:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
additional comment: Surnames can be both a disambiguation page and an article at the same time. Use them for both purposes whenever possible, as Smith. I could easily see Williams, Taylor, Thatcher and Fletcher expanded similarly. I trust Wikipedians to expand others as well. --Unfocused 03:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Names/surnames should be maintained if historically notable (e.g., Irish and Scottish clan names). [2] [3] (By the way, I disagree with every opinion stated by the deletionists. Their reasons rest on hypocritical double standards, and are illogical and nonsensical.) Adraeus 03:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any name is notable. Any and all of them. They have histories, meanings, origins, pronunciations. Don't confuse a name history with geneaology (sp). You go to any county fair and you find people selling name histories that are pages long for even the most obscure names, first and last. Wikipedia isn't paper and there are plenty of name projects on Wikipedia where people have put forth good, valid, and encyclopedic effort SchmuckyTheCat 06:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All names, unless new creations, are notable and have their own histories, meanings and origins. Many given names in the English language share the common roots from Greek, Latin or Hebrew, etc., with the European counterparts. Surnames also deal with histories of clans. In addition name articles can serve as disambiguation to notable people with a certain given name or surname. — Insta ntnood 16:04, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
As was said by Schmucky, any and all names are notable and at least article worthy. They may also serve as useful disambiguation pages to those who have that name ("What was he called... something Robertson..."). Further, particular familes have very interesting histories which are more than noteworthy. --Oldak Quill 16:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC) PS. I do not believe we should create policy on this issue, we should take it on a case-by-case basis.[reply]
Of course, we can have a policy that mandates considering deletion of names/surnames on a case-by-case basis. Adraeus 14:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Names should be treated like any other subjects of articles: kept if notable, merged or deleted if not. I've come here from Wang (surname), and that's a good example of what I'd consider a suitable article for keeping. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked it out, and it looks to me like a good example of an article that should be split into a Wiktionary entry and a disambiguation page. Carnildo 23:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So would you suggest that we ban etymological information from all Wikipedia articles? Will you now delete such information from River Thames and Florida and atheism? In light of these examples (and countless others) please explain why it is a problem to include substantive information in an article that also serves as a disambig. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:35, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
Per WP:NOT, things like etymology are useful as part of an article, but not if they constitute the entire article. R adiant _* 15:01, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - so if the name ought to exist as a disambig, what's wrong with throwing in the etymology? It usually only takes up a line or two, and may be interesting and useful to the person looking up the name (indeed, it might be what they're looking for). -- BD2412 ^talk 15:11, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
Name articles should be kept if they have any encyclopedic content (history of all "Smiths" or function as pointers to it (link to "The Smiths". Kappa 09:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as if this encyclopedia needs to be cut down just so it can fit on a bookshelf. If there is something of interest to people other than the author, I don't see that it does any harm being in an encyclopedia. This constant attack on sur-/clan/caste/house names does nothing to encourage real content to be added. This is at least the second time in a year that some of these pages have had to be defended and the time could have been put into content in the articles instead. --Douglas 16:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Surnames should be treated in the same way as we treat all other articles in Wikipedia. If an article is on a notable subject and is not advertising or vanity, it is kept - if it is non-notable, it is deleted. If a surname is notable, then it deserves to have its article kept. The vote should not be "surname - yes or no?", it should be "surname - notable or non-notable?" And any surname article which has (or can be extended to include) significant information beyond etymology and genealogy is likely to be notable. Grutness...wha? 07:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC) ( a member of Clan O Duibhgeannain).[reply]
Surnames of non-notable persons are mostly non-notable and should be treated through VfD. Surnames of notable persons should be redirects/disambig pages. Given names are inherently notable. Grue 12:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Names and surnames absolutely should be kept. They serve two purposes. First, names have history and meaning, and articles can be written abaout them. Second, the name page can be used to disambiguate notable persons with that name. —Lowellian (talk) 04:03, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Assuming an article doesn't contradict existing, significant Wikipedia policies in force (e.g. must not be a dic def), it should be kept as long as the subject is truly notable. As Radiant said below, "etymology can be part of an encyclopedia article, but if there's nothing else in the article then only etymology won't suffice." If it's substantial enough, keep it on Wikipedia--if not, off to a better home. --Dpr 10:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
of course they should be kept. at least for chinese surnames, there are great stories of history to be told and the list is pretty much closed. Chensiyuan 18:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Late to this, but the above comments are well-reasoned. TheGrappler 09:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names/surnames should be deleted

I think that names in and of themselves are not notable, and should be deleted. Wikipedia is neither a geneology reference nor a dictionary. If the article has sufficient content and Wikipedia decides they want names, then maybe transwikiing the article would be appropriate. --Carnildo 01:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also consider them to be part of what the community has already decided that Wikipedia is not. What can you really say about the name other than pronunciation, origins, usage and meaning? Those are topics for a really good, unabridged dictionary but do not make an encyclopedia article. Other than a few which are useful as disambiguation pages, I think that almost all articles about the name as a name should be transwiki'd to Wiktionary. There are some exceptions and we should continue to discuss the exceptions on a case-by-case basis but the general rule is "send them to Wiktionary". Rossami (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Names should basically be kept as disambigs only. First names should include famous people known primarily by their first name (Kings, Popes, Saints, etc), and should not include a list of everyone named John, for instance (which the John page regretibly tried to do at one point). Ideally surnames should redirect to the appropriate section in the List of people by name, but, unfortunately, that's not presently possible, so they should be kept as disambigs, but should link to those sections when possible (see many present examples, such as Watson). Surnames should be redirects in those cases where only 1 person is well known by that name (Beethoven, Hitler, Einstein, etc). -R. fiend 18:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. R adiant _* 14:55, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
R. fiend seems to have a sensible take on this. TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only keep names if there is more to say about them than their derivation, genealogical information of non-notable people with the name, and the name's worldwide distribution. It needs to be a case-by-case basis, but I tend towards delete in general. Rick K 66.60.159.190 18:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Individual names should normally be in Wiktionary, but we should have general articles on, say, Norwegian onomastics or Jewish onomastics, which could include annotated lists of typical and preferrably notable of various types of given names and surnames and other things having to do with naming (patronymics, diminutives etc.). And beware of original research and bad references in this area. There are tons of really, really awfully bad books on the derivation of names, produced to profit from people's interest in genealogy and naming their babies. (Not to mention coffee mugs...) Uppland 07:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The way to deal with that is to cite sources as much as possible. There's a dispute about the etymology of "chav", for example. See how Wiktionary:chav handles it. Even though the "bad" etymologies were presented, see what effect citing the sources (and explaining the dispute) had on what people then actually took to be the etymology in the discussion at Talk:charva. ☺ Uncle G 17:07, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
- For a closer-to-home example, see the etymology of Wiktionary:Hastings. How different would your level of trust be in the statement that the name was from German if there had been no sources cited and you thus had no way of discovering that that particular piece of information came from BabyNamesWorld, rather than books and articles on the history of Sussex? You'd have to blindly accept it along with the rest of the etymology. Uncle G 17:07, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
Names should not be on Wikipedia, not because of any notability concerns but because they are dict. defs. I have no problems with pages such as List of Hebrew names and List of Arabic names and think non disambig articles on names should be redirected to these list pages. If more space is needed for origins and meaning a link should be provided to the Wiktionary article on the name. - SimonP 14:38, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
If that was the case, why do we make exceptions for Hebrew and Arab names?Comatose51 13:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, have a look at the article on my family's name at Clan O Duibhgeannain - is it a dictdef? How would Wiktionary cope with that? Many, many names can be written about with this much encyclopaedic detail if they are allowed to be. Grutness...wha? 07:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The choice with the longest description

Names as words go in Wiktionary. Names as people/concepts/places/things/events go in Wikipedia.

I'm surprised that there's a debate upon this. I put that down to editors simply being unaware of the existing work that has been done in this area. Unfocused, SchmuckyTheCat, Instantnood all talk about "origins, meanings, and history", without realizing that we have a whole Wikiproject for that sort of thing, and without being aware of What Wikipedia is not.
Names are words. Most given names and family names so obviously meet the Wiktionary criteria for inclusion, it is almost silly. (They are attested as words in hundreds of published works spanning periods of centuries, in many cases.) Wiktionary has two appendices, one for given names (Wiktionary Appendix:First names) and one for family names (Wiktionary Appendix:Surnames), and happily takes articles on names as words. Therefore it takes articles that describe the etymologies, pronunciations, usages, histories, translations, and alternative spellings of names. I've tried to give an indication of where we can head with articles like Wiktionary:Darlington, Wiktionary:Hastings, Wiktionary:Durham, Wiktionary:Phil, Wiktionary:Philip, Wiktionary:Phillip, Wiktionary:Kat, Wiktionary:Kevin and so forth.
Encyclopaedia articles are about people/concepts/places/things/events, not about the words. However, we have a long-standing practice of — where necessary — having name disambiguation articles, as a navigational aid for finding people who are either commonly known solely by a given name, or who share a common family name (and thus are often referred to by their family name); as well as disambiguating between places and things. See Bush, for example. I've avoided the deletion of — ahem! — quite a number of articles from deletion by rewriting them as name disambiguations.
Wikipedia:disambiguation clearly says:
"Note that a disambiguating page may look a lot like a dictionary entry. We try to maintain a policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so resist the urge to make such pages even more dictionary-like than they already are (for example, there's no need to put etymologies or pronunciations, unless those serve to clarify the topics)."
I keep meaning to expand that, adding a trick that I've found to be very useful in practice, namely interwiki linking the disambiguation to Wiktionary and explicitly pointing there for etymologies, pronunciations, translations, and so forth. There's a 70,000 word dictionary right next door, and it's there to be used in exactly this way.
therefore
A name doesn't get to be an encyclopaedia article unless it's the name of one or more people/places/concepts/events/things. If there are no people/places/concepts/events/things, there is no need for a disambiguation article or a primary topic article. Readers wanting a "dictionary of first names" or a "dictionary of surnames" should be pointed in the direction of the dictionary. (It seems so blindingly obvious, doesn't it?)
If there is just the one person/place/concept/event/thing the primary article interwiki links to Wiktionary for dictionary article information (etymology, and so forth) on the name.
Otherwise there are more than one person/place/concept/event/thing, there's thus a name disambiguation article, and the disambiguation article interwiki links to Wiktionary for dictionary article information on the name.
I point out that this really didn't need a policy consensus (except perhaps to familiarize people with how we have already been going about things for quite some time). Given the number of rewrites as name disambiguations that I've done in collaboration with other VFD participants, it seems to me the consensus has long since formed at VFD. "Keep as name disambiguation" is not disputed, nor is Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor the notion that there's only a need for a disambiguation if there are existing encyclopaedia articles, nor the notion that we don't disambiguate on given names unless the people concerned are actually known by their given names alone. Editors seem, to me, to have largely agreed upon this arrangement for pretty much as long as I've been an editor (both pseudonymous and anonymous). Uncle G 17:07, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

Since you address me specifically:

Wiktionary is a steaming pile.
Names are concepts and things independent of the people they are attached to.
I'm not unaware - I disagree.
I'm not looking to add genealogical information to wikipedia, bleh!
A name's history and etymology goes above and beyond a dictionary definition and is encyclopedic.
SchmuckyTheCat 18:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you personally dislike Wiktionary doesn't mean it's a bad idea. It's a very useful source for words and etymology. I think UncleG makes a very strong case. R adiant _* 14:53, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- And, of course, just because you personally like Wiktionary doesn't mean it's a good idea. I don't think UncleG makes a "very strong" case. He misunderstands that traditional names, like Smith (derived from blacksmith, silversmith, goldsmith, etc.), and historical names, like Ramsay, have an extensive encyclopedic history. Names like Joe and John are also encyclopedic if anyone cared to do the research required to make them so. Details such as where they originated and for what reasons, and why certain people assumed identity are encyclopedic. Dismissing linguistics as dictionary-material is blatant ignorance. Obviously if a name-article lacks the necessary information for its encyclopedic status, then either the name-article should be made a stub or the name-article should be expanded, but these name-articles should not be deleted and moved to someplace else. All names belong on Wikipedia. Adraeus 19:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Names/surnames should be merged

Other possibilities

Keep or move to Wiktionary

We should keep notable, common names and move non-notable ones to Wiktionary if they want them. (My definition of "notable" would be "somewhere in the top 100 or so," but it should always be on a case-by-case basis.)

I'm a month away from completing my BA in the world's greatest linguistics program, and I've done a small amount of work on names. While I'm not an expert on the linguistics of names, I can say that for common, notable first and last names, we can find plenty of information beyond etymology and genealogy: how common the name is, what factors influenced any rise and fall in popularity, and what psychological associations people have with the name. An example might be something like "The name Victoria became wildly popular throughout the English-speaking world during the reign of Queen Victoria...". There are threads of anthropological linguistics and sociolinguistics that explore personal names, what influences them and why people in any given culture give particular names to people.

However, I think name articles without much verifiable information besides etymology and genealogy count as dicdefs, just like any other subject where only a definition is possible. Some people have likened name articles to genealogical entries, but I don't think they necessarily are unless they only contain genealogical information, such as family trees and the first ancestor in a country. Any other information is more about anthropology, sociology and sociolinguistics than genealogy. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 04:55, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

wiktionary is a steaming pile. I, like many others, mostly pretend it doesn't exist, so that's not a solution to many people. SchmuckyTheCat 05:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I find that not a very convincing argument. Wiktionary exists and many people use it. The fact that you happen not to like it is pretty much irrelevant. R adiant _* 10:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "genealogical information"? Strangely, the deletionists relegate genealogy to pseudoscience. Genealogy is the scientific and historical study of families. Many, if not all, families have serious history that is certainly encyclopedic. Moreover, I don't see how any linguist — student or not — can state that the etymology and genealogy of a name "counts as dictionary definition". Etymology does not define words. Etymology provides historical perspectives of word origins. From there we can build a valid encyclopedic and historical reference to a term. In addition, names, like Steve and Joe, cannot be "defined" due to the individuality of perception. Adraeus 07:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen anyone apply 'pseudoscience' to a VfD discussion on a name or genealogy. On the contrary, it's long been established that WP:NOT a genealogy database. R adiant _* 10:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

By "genealogical information," I mean family trees, lists of ancestors, that kind of thing. For example, if an article about a surname listed every ancestor who established the family line in a new area and every ancestor who made changes to the name, that would be genealogy: "Jebediah Smith of Manchester, England, moved to Roanoke, Virginia in 1608, later changing his name to Jebediah DeSmith." The problem with genealogy on Wikipedia is not that the deletionist kabal has labeled it a "pseudoscience," it's that most genealogical entries are about people whose only claim to fame is that they're somebody's ancestor. Well, if you have children you're somebody's ancestor, and who's prepared to argue that having children makes someone notable enough for Wikipedia? ;-) By the way, I didn't mean to suggest Wiktionary should contain genealogical information. Genealogy cruft would likely be removed in the transwiki process, as it should be. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:46, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Medici contains genealogical information. Should we VfD that article now? :\ Adraeus 09:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong notability provides an obvious exception. R adiant _* 10:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

In response to your second point, I know etymology doesn't define words. However, a quick look at any dictionary, including Wiktionary, will show that many dictionary definitions contain information on etymology. So do many Wikipedia articles about encyclopedic subjects, "fuck" being the most obvious example. However, if there can be nothing to an article beyond the etymology of a word—names included—it's Wiktionary material. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:46, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with your logic that states "if there can be nothing to an article beyond the etymology of a word—names included — it's Wiktionary material" then we should VfD thousands of encyclopedic articles (or article sections) that use etymology as a historical foundation, including atheism. I don't think you value etymology as highly as you should. Adraeus 09:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is plainly wrong. Atheism has a lot of philosophical information. The point is that etymology can be part of an encyclopedia article, but if there's nothing else in the article then only etymology won't suffice. R adiant _* 10:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

There is something beyond etymology for most names. They are concretely attached to human beings. -- BD2412 ^thimkact 20:00, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

In support of my point, I just made an Abramson article/disambig (and redirected Abramson (surname) to it). :-D -- BD2412 ^talk 21:19, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

See WP:POINT-- Stevage 10:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]