Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinkus

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, without prejudice against a redirect or disambiguation page. —Centrx→talk • 13:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pinkus

Pinkus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Procedural nomination. Bump from speedy. Neutral. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-24 08:18Z

• Keep, notble name. frummer 08:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• How so? MER-C 08:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• In that it is a Historical Jewish family name. frummer 08:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Turn it into a disambiguation page which lists all people with that surname with Wikipedia articles. MER-C 08:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Most name articles are worthless. This one is worthless. - crz crztalk 11:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it has good basic information, and it can be developed even more. Etymology of historic Jewish names is WP:NOTABLE. IZAK 14:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. JFW | T@lk 19:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if referenced, delete otherwise.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Delete per Piotr. Just H 20:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Disambig page seems like what this ought to be.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The topic is notable, but the specific references to people should be referenced. I think that the origin of common last names should be considered pertinent to an encyclopedia --Kevin Murray 00:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I'm trying to imagine who'd look up this page, and it seems like it would only be people with this last name. That, or a Jeopardy! writer doing research for a category called "Hocus Pinkus." I suppose the case could be made for inclusion in a reference book, but it feels like something that belongs more on a geneological website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TruthGal (talk • contribs) 03:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC).
• Tough call. Personally, as a Jewish reader, I find this exploration of name histories interesting. However, as a Wikipedian (at least between the hours of 12 and 1 AM), I don't see notability or even verifiability. At least 75% of the article should be deleted, and possibly all of it. Normally we expand outward from stubs, but the solution might be to turn this into a stub. 129.98.212.144 05:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Subject is clearly notable, though the article as it stands needs expansion and improved sourcing. Alansohn 19:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see why so many people seem to see this as a tough call. We're not a genealogical guide. There are a lot of interesting surnames with long histories, not just Jewish ones. My own last name, which is German, has an interesting history but doesn't deserve an article. Keeping an article on the history of such a name would lay the groundwork for keeping articles on many, many last names. --The Way 19:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep: by the way, the (I thought) famous punchline "Pinkus, pay him the two dollars!" amazingly, is not on line anywhere. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this name is notable for us to document here Yuckfoo 02:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the surname is a notable subject.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 13:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Question Would one of the above editors supporting keeping the article please expound upon the reasons why this particular surname is "notable to write about"? Why is this surname more notable than countless other surnames? I see a lot of keeps but no actually valid arguments behind them that are rooted in policy. --The Way 21:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Answer No one said that it was, you might want to peruse Category:Surnames some time. While inclusion is not an indicator of notability in all cases, it should be rather obvious that common family names, small town and villages, battleships, individual Simpsons episodes, train stations, commercial albums, et cetera are notable, especially in the context of an encyclopedia aiming to provide the complete sum of human knowledge. Silensor 00:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I had no idea there was a category for surnames. Anyways, after looking over that category and clicking around randomly it seems that all the surnames listed there link to disambiguation pages that link to all individuals who have articles and that surname. The article under discussion here is an actual article rather than a disambiguation page, which is why I am questioning notability. I think surnames are different from villages and such, but that is a discussion for a general policy rather than this particular article. I wouldn't mind seeing this as a disambiguation page perhaps with a small intro but I still don't see a reason to have actual articles on surnames. Wikipedia also clearly doesn't actually aim to provide the complete sum of human knowledge otherwise we'd wouldn't have policies regarding notability and only have policies regarding verifiability. --The Way 00:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per the above. Silensor 00:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 10:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Phinehas (create disambig listing if needed) Encyclopedic notability for this name seems to only arise out of association with Biblical figure - recommend merge/redirect into that article Bwithh 11:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete as a clear violation of WP:NOT a genealogy database. Turn into a disambig and/or redirect to Phineas (disambiguation) (as an overall disambig page for what is essentially the same surname) if there are other Pinkuses (Pinki?). Zunaid©^{Review me!} 12:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Misinterpretation WP:NOT is often used as an excuse to delete virtually anything, but the implication that this is a genealogical entry is ludicrous. WP:NOT#DIR excludes "Genealogical entries" and suggest that users "See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project, and Wikitree for a project that aims to be the family tree of the human race." This article can in no way shape or form be interpreted as a genealogical entry. Alansohn 13:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • See this deletion debate on a similar article (although not as well-written) that also contained "significance of" type of information, detailing where the surname fits into the hierarchy of the Indian caste system. The outcome was to change it from this version, which was deemed to be a genealogy entry, into the current form which is a simple disambig page. Zunaid©^{Review me!} 07:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Baleete or disambig. Unreferenced, marginally-notable cruft makes me a sad snake. ~ Flameviper 22:03, 10 January 2007 (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.