Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wapiennik

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. Yannismarou 08:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wapiennik

Wapiennik (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable surname. Would be an unnecessary disambig page if converted, as we don't have an article on anyone with that name. Contested prod. MER-C 05:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki as is (already done), and if it's not cleaned up, it should be Deleted. As it is, it is not encyclopaedic. Madman bum and angel 19:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since it is already transwikied. There's very little material to clean up, and doing so wouldn't suddenly make the article WP-worthy. MSJapan 19:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep because I believe that fact that is unique is in itself a reason to include it, and it has many hits on Google. I think it would be almost discriminatory against Poles to remove it, as if their surnames are somehow "lesser" than the others listed on this site. Why have a surname stub? A surname category? Not only is it a surname, it is describes a type of structure. At the very least put it on a disambiguation page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.197.163.165 (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

— 76.197.163.165 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Non-notable surname. Articles for first and last names are only necessary for common/famous instances. This applies to neither. Also note that this was put up for a sppedy 2 weeks ago, and the CSD template was removed and never replaced. Caknuck 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I believe that because only common surnames should be noted on Wikipedia that only common knowledge should be noted in all other arenas on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.42.130.222 (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory. I also agree with nom's point that the article has no value as a disambiguation page (as some other surname pages have) in light of the fact that we have no articles about people with this surname.--Kubigula (talk) 04:54, 14 April 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.