Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryeland (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 delete. ✗plicit 13:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryeland (surname)[edit]

[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)

Per WP:NNAME, If at least two articles matching the surname or given name of the subject of a name article do not exist, then the surname or given name list article would not be notable and should not be created. A properly sourced article about a name may still be notable without a list. This stub fails on the first count, as there are no articles on people with this surname. There is also no significant coverage of the surname itself; the source currently used in the article is a genealogy hobby project. Lennart97 (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no articles on Wikipedia for anyone with this surname, and the article miserably fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY and WP:NNAME. The most notable person I can seem to find is an editor in a fictional series of novels (Magpie Murders and Moonflower Murders); however, the character herself does not seem to warrant a page, and even if so, there would need to be two people and I can only find one person close to notable with that last name other than the aforementioned fictitious Susan Ryeland. The other people with the last name of Ryeland I could find on anywhere other than seemingly social media or genealogy websites are: an author who has written a number of self-published books on Amazon, but does not meet WP:NAUTHOR , local councillor who fails WP:NPOL, a therapist from New Zealand who could potentially pass WP:GNG as there are three references to her in articles, but they do not necessarily establish notability. Regardless, none of these articles are written, so delete per WP:NNAME. If articles for two aforementioned people do pass WP:GNG and are created this page could then be recreated, but holding it here until/if then seems unnecessary. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 14:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: can't see any reason not to delete. Richard New Forest (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would agree with above arguments, particularly that the lack of notable people with the name makes the article redundant. I don't think being an unusual name (which the article seems to imply is why it exists) is sufficient grounds for it to have an article. If there were lots of sources covering it, or discussing it, it might be different, but I can see now sign of this. Dunarc (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2021 (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.