 | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 March 2011. The result of the discussion was keep as a disambiguation page. |
 | This set index article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Knaggs was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 CONSENSUS NOT REACHED
Article created by User:Knaggs, and there's nothing particularly wrong with it, I just feel it's not notable enough for an encyclopedia and if it belongs anywhere it really belongs in the wiktionary surnames list rather than here. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 13:28, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- If the wiktionary surnames list has articles such as this, then it looks like a good transwiki. Average Earthman 14:01, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- What I should have done in the first place is look at the articles on surnames on Wiktionary - they tend to be rather poorer than this (or non-existent). So I'd say keep here. Average Earthman 17:58, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Fair enough! I didn't know that wiktionary had a surnames list. Will the links to other wikpedia pages still work? Jeff Knaggs 14:28, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- keep. Interesting, expandable, and not just a stub. Posiduck 15:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. We're not a geneaology site. If someone *were* to start one using mediawiki, they might do well looking at Nerdanel and parents -- while I feel that that article also deserves VfD, and will likely VfD it later on, it is definitely an example of how family tree stuff can look good in this software. A WikiGeneaology site would be very cool. --Improv 18:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: As an established family historian I heartily agree with you, though this isn't exactly the forum to discuss it. Once I've got my meta username sorted out I'll bring it up there. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Can you let me know when you do? I'll give my support. Leave me a note... --Improv 20:31, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: As an established family historian I heartily agree with you, though this isn't exactly the forum to discuss it. Once I've got my meta username sorted out I'll bring it up there. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. We've consistently rejected genealogy in the main space, and I think we owe it to all other surname entries to be consistent in that regard. The well written and the poorly written alike are off due to topic. No offense to this article, but it's just the way of the project so far. Geogre 19:59, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Are surname etymology/origin and geneology entirely inseparable? I mean, I understand the objection that geneology has no place in wikipedia, but this article discusses the origins of the name, rather than creating a family tree of those who have it. I think its fine for us to have articles about surnames as long as those articles don't become family trees. Posiduck 20:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I know, and I'm not as comfortable with the delete or keep as I would like. Etymology is a dictionary endeavor, so surname etymologies would go to Wiktionary. If, on the other hand, an article can be made on a family's fortunes (the Percy's, for example, or the Churchills) that consistently inherit a place in the world and position in society, I'd say keep, but those would be articles, again, about people and not words. If subject=words|Wiktionary is how I see it. Geogre 01:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not an article we need. RickK 22:21, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Mikkalai 23:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This article is more than just geneaology, and it's interesting too. bbx 00:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. (if I can vote for my own page) I have investigated Wiktionary, and it doesn't seem to support images (so I would lose the distribution map), and linking to Wikipedia pages seems awkward. Jeff Knaggs 14:40, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Interesting, verifiable, is not strictly speaking geneological. older≠wiser 14:47, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, this seems like an encyclopedic article about verifiable information, and its not overspecific geneology —siroχo 02:42, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Start a discussion about improving the Knaggs page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Knaggs" page.
