Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milnes

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus for either, page kept. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)

Milnes

WP:NOT a genealogy database. Radiant_* 10:25, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Miller (the most common variant of names derived from the profession of running a mill - again, see Smith (surname), and note that Miller is almost as common) - yet another example of a page that could be both a disambig and an informative article. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:50, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Polluting Miller with Milne would be wrong. Uncle G 14:57, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
• Merge with Milne, a closer variant. (Or else merge Milne with Miller, as above.) I don't see a problem with having some genealogy information on a page that also has notable family members listed. :-) — RJH 14:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Like the way that the people section of Bush (disambiguation) has been structured, for example. However, there's probably enough to keep Milne and Milnes as separate disambiguations. Note that doing so makes the interwiki links simpler. Uncle G 14:57, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
• There is no validity in a merge with Miller but some validity in a merge with Milne. However, the recognition of association between the clans is recognised by Milnes and by the (USA) Gordons but not at present by Milne. For this reason, there is validity in keeping the pages distinct. --Douglas 20:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep until the Names/Surnames debate in process is resolved. Then renominate at will.--Unfocused 14:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Etymologies and pronunciations of (attested) proper nouns go in Wiktionary. (And, conversely, Wiktionary is not an encyclopaedia.) This one would go in Wiktionary:Milnes. See Wiktionary:Hastings, Wiktionary:Churchward, and Wiktionary:Jock for existing examples of how this works. Articles about names, i.e. about words, should go in Wiktionary, whilst articles about people/concepts/things/events/places by those names should go in Wikipedia. Compare Darlington (disambiguation) and Wiktionary:Darlington, for example (or indeed Hastings (disambiguation) and Wiktionary:Hastings). Once the etymology, pronunciation, and other dictionary article content has been moved to Wiktionary, there's scope for a name disambiguation article here. Whilst there may not be concepts, places, or things, there are certainly people to be disambiguated. I find at least two encyclopaedia articles for people with the family name Milnes (Sherrill Milnes, Richard Monckton Milnes, 1st Baron Houghton, possibly Robert Crewe-Milnes, 1st Marquess of Crewe, and Robert Shore Milnes) . My only problem with this article is its lack of cited sources, and the fact that the original author basically cited himself, meaning that it might be better to start from scratch at Wiktionary than transwiki the article. In any event, Keep, to become a name disambiguation. Uncle G 14:57, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • You have a problem with someone citing themselves? Would it, then, make all the difference if someone else provided the information and cited the same author? It sounds illogical that the author should not be the most valid person to enter information into an encyclopedia! --Douglas 20:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect to Miller or Milne as neither of those names would be linked to or searched for under Milnes. Even Wiktionary doesn't accept just any personal name. From Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion comes this quote:

  As a rule of thumb, a proper noun should be included only if:

  1. It is used as a common noun (especially if it is commonly written without capitalization).

  2. It is used in an attributive sense with the expectation that the meaning will be widely understood (a David Beckham hairstyle).

  3. Words or terms derived from the name are already in Wiktionary.

  4. The name appears in different forms in different languages (e.g. John/Johann/Jan/Juan/Jean/Giovanni ...)

• --Angr/_comhrá 07:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that those are the new criteria, recently changed. Also note that the old criteria do not match what has actually been existing practice. There's a discussion of all this on that page's talk page that is as yet unfinished. It's worth reading. Uncle G 14:52, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
• I am becoming utterly distressed with the number of Wikipedians who don't know the difference between genealogy (e.g. Dukes of Swabia family tree) and etymology, and who are presuming that because etymology is covered in the Wiktionary, it can not also be a legitimate part of an article (e.g. River Thames). If we follow this logic, we must remove all etymological information from all Wikipedia articles. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:18, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
  • I agree that Milnes isn't a genealogy page, and I agree that etymologies can be useful parts of encyclopedia articles, but Milnes as it stands is basically a dicdef. Being a name, there's no meaning to be assigned, but there's an (unsourced and highly speculative sounding) etymology, a vague pronunciation guide, and a paragraph about coats of arms that doesn't even show us any of the three coats of arms associated with the Milnes family but merely warns us not to trust everything we see. --Angr/_comhrá 06:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
    • So you are saying to delete because it's incomplete? --Douglas 20:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps Milnes should be labelled Clan Milnes (which has legitimacy) and then everyone will be happy? Or will that then cause calls for deletion of pages like Clan Gordon, Clan MacRae, House of Stuart etc? --Douglas 20:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: WP not a dictionary. --Ragib 17:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.