Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bakkeheim

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 of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bakkeheim[edit]

Google returns 76 results (WP being top), orphaned article, article states that it is not popular even in Norway Mys e kurity 00:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity. -- Arnzy | Talk 01:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could never write an article on an unpopular Norwegian name. -- Mithent 01:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Khoikhoi 01:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. --BWD^(talk) 01:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though maybe a bit funny, writing one sentence about an unpopular last name. Bayberrylane 03:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AmiDaniel 03:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but certainly should be extended, and probably give some insight into the name's history, why it's "protected", and maybe say some about protected names in general, what's been done to protect them, etc. Joaobonzao 04:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, interesting name. --Masssiveego 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe I'm not reading this properly, but I still don't know what a "protected name" is, and at the least, searching for a connection doesn't lead me to anything. Probably vanity as stated above. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks content to prove its notability. However, an article about protected names may be interesting. I have no idea what they are, but they sound interesting. --Cymsdal e 15:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Saying that a surname is rare is surely in itself an admission of non-notability. I agree with Cymsdale that it might be interesting to learn why and how it is 'protected', but that is something for an article on Norwegian onomastics, where 'Bakkeheim' might get a listing but probably wouldn't. Bucketsofg 15:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --AaronS 20:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wot Bucketsofg said. Just zis Guy you know? 20:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while it's protected, it's not notable. Every norwegian name used by less then ~200 people are protected, and you're not alowed to take them as a last name unless you have spesial permission. An article about Norwegian name law would be intersting though. Eivind ^speak! 22:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to at least know something about this. Would you be able to at least start one? --Cymsdal e 22:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You may want to set up the basic article. :) Newyorktimescrossword 09:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT i think articles on last names is good and informative. perhaps we can start one with norwegian last names? Newyorktimescrossword 09:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though these Norwegian name laws are pretty fascinating, and we need an article about that. ProhibitOnions 12:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Meritus 21:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. It's an interesting name, but that doesn't mean it should have its own article. Peraps an article on Norwegian last names? Jude (talk,contribs,email) 23:44, 14 March 2006 (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.