Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have changed, adopted or adjusted their surnames, either personally or professionally or both, based on their mother's maiden name

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. this is actually a very difficult call. There are a lot of people citing guidelines WP:TRIVIA WP:IDONTLIKEIT WP:NOT WP:OCAT but there's little real debate here, because no one is really exploring what the borderlines of any of these guidelines lie and how they interact. This might be a good point for a more general debate on lists, but I can't find consensus here, nor (whatever guidelines it may lie at the boundaries of, does this breach any policy). Scott Mac 23:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who adopted matronymic surnames[edit]

List of people who adopted matronymic surnames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A useless and rather silly collection of information. This is the sort of nonsense that makes Wikipedia a laughing stock. E. Fokker (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: E. Fokker's reasoning amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which really is not a good basis for nominating something for deletion. The comment "A useless a rather silly collection of information. This is the sort of nonsense that makes Wikipedia a laughing stock" says more about his mindset than it does the value of this, which I created and defend as both interesting, possibly instructive, and is comprised entirely of notables whose pseudonyms are confirmed in every article. I suspect E. Fokker did not try to have the list speedy deleted because he knew that that would have failed. [email protected] (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia is sort of nonsense and a laughing stock (and will always be), otherwise it wouldn't have articles about videogmaes, anime, porn actors, etc. Wikipedia is not only for scientific articles. 190.51.184.37 (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC) — 190.51.184.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It most certainly is not WP:OR because each individual's article confirms the information, and with only one exception, that information was not placed by me in each article. Should every article be scoured of the derivation of the professional surname of these notables? [email protected] (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If one were to use the sources in those articles that state the matronomial name change, and reference this list, it would be an improvement. But simply stating that our articles back this list up isn't enough, WP is not a reliable source. The utility of this article is also a problem, its title ensures that nobody would reach it from a search. Don't know what you mean about scouring other arts. The Interior (Talk) 02:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As editors have taken on the task of sourcing this list, and its untenable name has been changed, I withdraw my delete. The Interior (Talk) 01:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List demonstrates notability of the concept, contains useful and cited info. The Interior (Talk) 23:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - if someone wanted to make a table, that would be far more useful, but there's nothing here that couldn't be done as a category (supposing for the moment that it's an encyclopedic intersection). Also, if it is kept, it should be moved as this is obviously a joke name. "either personally or professionally" and "changed, adopted, or adjusted" are pointlessly lengthy ways of saying things that you could say with one word ... it's obviously a joke title, kinda like Wikipedia:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. --B (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A list of people who changed their names might be acceptable, but by mother's maiden name? That's just too trivial. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My first inclination was to vote delete as "Lists that are too specific are also a problem", but given that the default (at least in the western world) is to use the father's surname perhaps this could prove useful as a list of exceptions to that norm. I won't lose sleep if it is deleted, but if it's not it should be renamed to something like "List of people whose surname is their mother's maiden name". Imyourfoot (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, exactly, the father's surname is the default surname, hence this subcategory. I can change the name, which maybe is a bit lengthy but I wanted to be precise, to something like People whose surnames derived from their mother's maiden name but not for this doomed list. I'll recreate as a category as per B's suggestion ("but there's nothing here that couldn't be done as a category (supposing for the moment that it's an encyclopedic intersection))" and I guess I'll have to add reflinks from the subject's articles confirming same. [email protected] (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The lack of sources is the deal killer. And that must be one of the worst article titles I've seen on Wikipedia. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a list of existing Wiki articles - that should be enough as you can always got to them to find out more detail Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 13:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Life isn't all too serious and it does no harm Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 13:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOHARM is not a valid reason to keep an article. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sloppy, random, trivia. Changing one's name is something to note in the person's own biography, sure, but collectively this is a trivial intersection of errata. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change it in to a CATEGORY Instead of an article it would be more useful as a category.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 15:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, assuming that sources can be found and cited indicating that some reliable source has discussed or commented upon the set of people who change their names to a maternal surname (to confirm that this is a notable topic). And definitely change the appalling title to something like "List of people who adopted matronymic surnames." The title of a list article need not fully explain the inclusion criteria for the list -- that can be done in the article text. This is one of those topics that would never fit into a paper encyclopedia, but can be included in Wikipedia -- assuming someone else has discussed the phenomenon on which the list is based. --Orlady (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up on my comment: I believe that WP:Notability of the list topic has been demonstrated -- as documented in the article as it now exists. The introductory section of the article cites several published sources that discuss the general phenomenon of people adopting a matronymic surname, including a recent trend in Sweden, the existence of advice to aspiring performers that suggests adopting such a name, and a report of how this phenomenon can be exploited in identify theft. Additionally, the sources cited for the list now provide numerous instances of published reliable sources reporting on a notable person's decision to use a matronymic surname, sometimes including discussion of the person's reasons for this choice. --Orlady (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tarc. WP:TRIVIA. Bulldog123 19:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete changing names is not notable. Most married women in most societies make such a change. MLA (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's definitely got my vote for most awkward title for a Wikipedia article, and even a worse one for a category. There are both men and women on the list, and this isn't the same as a woman keeping the surname that she was born with. At the moment, there's a lack of context in this one for the explanation of why someone selects their maternal ancestral name, of which there are several, and there's nothing about what their name had been. I can guess why Shirley Schrift changed her name to Shelley Winters, but there are sources that would explain that as well. Mandsford 21:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK I get it, everybody. Maybe I'll recreate as a category after the list is deleted (i.e. Category:People who adopted matronymic surnames). Thanks for all the suggestions. One point, as raised by Mandsford, I do not know in all cases why the individual in question adopted a matronymic (or is it matrilineal?) surname. I can only know that they did. [email protected] (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Can I please say that this list has far too cumbersome a title to be in Wikipedia? I am not voting for deletion - just renaming of the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and think of a better shorter name. Excellent list. There was just an article in the New York Times on people in Sweden doing this to get a better surname for the family. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We may have to suspend this discussion until the nominator agrees to stop vandalizing the article. I'm tired of adding sourced content, only to have it removed by the person who is intent on making the article disappear. --Orlady (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm trying to enforce Wikipedia's BLP policy, you added just one pertinent source which I left intact. E. Fokker (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all of it should be left intact. People have been commenting on the merits of the article that you nominated, and removing most of the content while the discussion is going on something that is done by consensus of the participants support, not the act of any one editor. Every now and then we get an editor who does a one-person crusade to remove content on the theory that it must not be seen until a source is located. That type of practice doesn't last long. It's disruptive, and it's not much different than vandalism, no matter how noble one's intention might be. Wikipedia is a work in progress and the collaboration of many people, and the way it is improved is in sourcing that which is not sourced, which is why we have a "citation needed" tag. It not only tips the reader to take certain statements with a grain of salt, but, more importantly, it gives editors a chance to see what does need sourcing. The "remove it immediately" approach is appropriate in some limited cases where there is harmful material or when a page has been vandalized; otherwise, you simply label it as a statement that needs a citation. I honestly don't see the BLP concern at all. Is it defaming someone by saying that the name they use is derived from their mother's maiden name? I don't see it. Please wait until everyone has had a chance to contribute to the debate. If the consensus is to delete, then that will be the result. Mandsford 02:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You and I appear to use different counting systems -- I distinctly remember adding 3 sources to the article, two of which were about dead people (not BLPs). I also remember some sourced content that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) added.
Regardless of that, your persistence in blanking most of the article during this AfD looks remarkably like WP:Bad faith. Now that you have started this AfD, it would be nice if you would let the process run its course instead of trying to predetermine the outcome by blanking the article. --Orlady (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the latest changes pending the outcome of the debate and a decision by a closing administrator. Mandsford 02:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Keep Delete while the people may be notable I can not find anything that claims that this intersection is notable. I don't care if the people are sources or not; I care if this has been commented on by journalists/scholars. This seeming unimportant topic has turned into a battle field of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please chill people. This isn't worth the expended energy. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of asking a hypothetical and voting for delete, why don't you just type it into Google and find out? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because I have nowhere enough time and I am trying to avoid drama. On Saturday I will look though my library/ebsco. If it changes anything, the new lead looks good and sows that the article is promising. I am changing to keep. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly defined list with inclusion criteria of a notable topic. I suspect most of the delete votes are a knee-jerk to the title. Once kept, that should be a discussion for the talkpage. Lugnuts (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per B. Article is inherently original research. Stifle (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? If a source says: "Her stage name came from the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley and from her mother, Rose Winter, an amateur soprano who had once won a Municipal Opera contest in St. Louis" or "She took her grandmother’s name, Bacal, at age eight, eventually adding the second l to make it easier to pronounce." or "When she was a drama and writing student at the University of Southern California, she substituted her mom's maiden name for "Reagan" and embraced liberal politics, carving out an independent identity from her dad, then the conservative governor." or "Dorothea Lange was born Dorothea Margaretta Nutzhorn in 1895, in Hoboken, New Jersey. She dropped her middle name and assumed her mother's maiden name after her father abandoned her and her mother." How is that original research? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand where Stifle is coming from, but I also think Stifle's conclusion is erroneous. I think Stifle is saying that the list is original research because it is not a list that was previously assembled by a reliable source. That would be a concern if this were a list such as "top 100 people who adopted their mother's maiden names" -- that is, a list with selection criteria that require some sort of subjective judgment. However, the only necessary determination of who belongs on the list (other than the person's WP:Notability) is an objective determination of whether the person adopted their mother's maiden name. Not every Wikipedia list needs to be a republication of a list assembled by a reliable source; this is one that does not. (However, if this list is to be kept, we do need to demonstrate that the topic of notable people adopting their mother's maiden names is a notable topic, based on the topic's being discussed by one or more reliable sources.) --Orlady (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet OR is defined as: "material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories — not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." By definition, if it is sourced, it can't be OR. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back to my theory of what it is that Stifle might be concerned about... A list such as The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time can not exist in Wikipedia unless a reliable source has previously published the list. Creating such a list without a source for the entire list -- even with sourced information about all of the individual items on the list -- would be original research. In contrast, this "matronymic surnames" list article is based solely onl objective information from published sources -- no subjective judgment is required to determine its contents, so assembling the list is not WP:OR. --Orlady (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivia as evidenced by the overly complicated title. Also, do not make a category per WP:OCAT. A list (or cat) of people that have an unremarkable thing in common is not encyclopedic. >Radiant< 15:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, please, please at least click on the article, even if you don't read it, before you comment. The name you are arguing against was changed, over a week ago which means you didn't even look at the article before you !voted to delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you look at the article? It no longer carries the absurd title. Anyway, I am not aware that "being given a silly title when initially created" is a criterion for deletion. --Orlady (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to cut down on the number of people who are !voting based on the title I changed it in the header to the current title. I hope I didn't offend anyone. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or categorize as long as the title remains the shorter version. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Ridiculously trivial, not educational or significant.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The old (long) name of the article biased too many positions above and prevented a reasonable discussion about whether the the topic meets WP:GNG. Default to no consensus so that the newly named article may be listed at AfD anew. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE; there's nothing particularly notable or significant about this. In at least a few cultures, adopting a matronymic surname is in fact the standard practice, or has been at some point. Even if restricted to modern Western cultures, it doesn't seem like a useful list. Robofish (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those people haven't adopted a matronymic surname, they had been it given it at birth. There is a difference. These people adopted the name later in life or took the name against convention. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lugnuts. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean keep. From a sociological standpoint, there may be some interest in this type of thing, so I wouldn't say that it's particulary trivial. The lack of sourcing is an issue, but if we can get that taken care of, I see no particular reason to delete this. Kansan (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you consider lack of sourcing to be an issue with the article as it now exists, or are you reacting to comments made early in this discussion? When it was nominated the article cited no sources (this version). The current version lists 39 reference citations, including a couple of items that are cited more than once. --Orlady (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, not an issue now at all. I'll blame it on editing at work. Kansan (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL regarding "I'll blame it on editing at work." --Orlady (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: - definable + notable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete OR magnet, non-notable, clearly trivial topic, WP:NOT.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to teeter into the area WP:NOTDIRECTORY, particularly #7 and the categorizing people into this segment. I do not see how this "is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." Barkeep Chat | $ 21:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please show how is it possible to insert Original Research into a list, let alone a list of people who either have matronymic surnames, and fit, or patronymic surnames, and don't.
As for WP deciding who makes the list; it is not OR to edit, or we would all be blocked. And even consensus is in this case given little opportunity to decide what is notable enough to make the list and what is not; if a subject fits a list's parameters (which in this case are crystal clear, not always true of lists), the fact that the subject has an article on WP is enough. Furthermore, even subjects that do not have articles of their own do not make the article topic itself (which is what we should be discussing at AFD) not notable, see the latest discussion on list inclusion criteria: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Inclusion_criteria_for_Lists#Notability_of_items_within_a_stand-alone_list. "It is recognized that a list's topic may be deemed notable, even if it includes non-notable items".
The 'WP is not a reliable source' argument is unwieldy in this case; unless someone wants to go to all the articles and find the sources, WP:IAR says 'maintaining' WP is best served by ignoring a requirement that is appropriate for inline citations of text, and only a preference for lists. Anarchangel (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_who_have_changed,_adopted_or_adjusted_their_surnames,_either_personally_or_professionally_or_both,_based_on_their_mother%27s_maiden_name&oldid=1138018880"