Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohana (surname)

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 speedy keep. Nominator withdrew and everyone else desired to keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ohana (surname)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

During NPP this page was redirected and the information in this page was added to Ohana (disambiguation) page. The page creator has been reverting the redirect and the merge. Talk page messages have been erased. My rationale for deletion is per WP:DABNAME A list of name-holders can be included in a People section of the page. The page exists for that purpose. I have already merged the content and so this page should be deleted. Bruxton (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Bruxton (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, revert the merge, a valid, referenced {{surname}} page, just like tens of thousands similar ones. You may also want to look at more argument in the RFC, Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Surname pages are disambiguation pages or not?. Yossi Rimon (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this nomination is damaging to the encyclopedia, as references and external links are expressly forbidden on disambiguation pages, so we would need to delete valid content to accomplish the merge. ~~WP:TROUT the nominator, and topic-ban them from the area for a year or so, for good measure.~~ BD2412 T 21:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @BD2412:, just trying to do my job. The reference was just added after the merge. I have now removed it - we have a valid d page and the other is duplicative. Not sure what I am missing. Bruxton (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: Removing valid references from encyclopedic content is textbook vandalism. If you do this again, it will be an immediate trip to WP:ANI for restrictions. BD2412 T 22:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: I am going to take a break. I am quite shocked by your aggressive tone in an AfD. I asked for clarification of your comments above, on your talk page, and instead you came to the AfD to threaten me. This is disappointing behavior from an administrator, and I am an editor simply helping tackle a significant backlog. If I was wrong to put Ohana and Ohana together in a D page we could have discussed. Bruxton (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked that an experienced editor would think that it was permissible to remove valid references from an article in order to improve their case for deletion. That action is far more aggressive than my tone. BD2412 T 22:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AGF - The reference was added after you told the article starter in the RFC that they should if possible include references providing information about surname origins and usage. So not my fault, I redirected long before that addition. Again if I am wrong to delete it, discuss, not threaten. Bruxton (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly valid surname page with info about the name itself, refs, and a long enough list of names. Names are usually partial title matches that shouldn't be cluttering up dab pages unnecessarily. Station1 (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surname easily passes WP:NNAME, which requests at least two notable persons with the surname (which there's currently nine). Jalen Folf (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn Seems the guideline has a bit of ambiguity regarding surname and dab pages but I am now aware of the Anthroponymy project's goals. Bruxton (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.