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; apart from weight of numbers, the points made about the lack of definition and sourcing are persuasive. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of French surnames[edit]

List of French surnames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indiscriminate collection of information Ccady 17:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Useful reference, not all lists are inherently an indiscriminate collection of information. See List of Jewish surnames.--Húsönd 18:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Neutral per Jayron32.--Húsönd 13:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree, this is a helpful refeence guide and most lists are worth keeping. --152.163.100.73 18:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Calling something an indiscriminate collection of information does not make it so. -Amarkov ^babble 23:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is a pointless list. WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information meshach 04:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how is it pointless? -Amarkov ^babble 04:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is List of Spanish Surnames, List of English Surnames, or List of English Surnames? This list could be endless meshach 05:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative question: Where is List of Jewish surnames? Oh wait, there it is. -Amarkov ^babble 15:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I was ready to vote "keep" on this one, but the more I looked at it, the more I realized there were problems(NOTE: THE OTHER SURNAME ARTICLES HAVE THESE SAME PROBLEMS):

1. Original Research: Where are the references to back up that these are French surnames? What makes a French surname? Surnames of people in France? How long does a surname have to be in France to be considered French? What about French surnames that appear in other nations? What about Franchified names that originated in other tongues? What about French surnames that have been translated to other tongues? Former territories of France that are now parts of other nations? Names that sound french but have no connection to France? You see the problem here? We have no way of defining the list to any satisfaction.
2. The articles it links to make no mention of the list itself. For example, the first name Alphonse redirects to a list of kings named Alphonso (first name, not surname!). If the subject of the list isn't notable within the articles it lists, why is it here?
3. Unweildy and huge. There are probably THOUSANDS of french surnames, maybe TENS OF THOUSANDS or HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS. It is impossible that this list can justify including some over others, and it cannot have all of them.
4. triviality: Notable lists should be of notable things. This is no more notable than a telephone directory. Telephone directories are VERY useful. I use one almost every day. No need to put one into a wikipedia article, however.

Any other additions to this? I think that presents a pretty comprehensive deletion case. --Jayron32 06:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unsourced list, no clear criteria, full of useless links like the one to Ferry. Kusma (討論) 11:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think a list like this is indeed a good idea and handy, but I agree that it should be sourced and I would think that a quick web search on French surnames would turn up responses that could be cited. Good bye and Happy Thanksgiving! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 13:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT for indiscriminate lists or original research. Who says the names are French and where did they say it ? List of surnames which may have been borne by people who might be French describes content and problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks meaningful criteria, resulting in original research, and has the potential to be wildly under-inclusive, making it less useful. --TheOtherBob 22:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Open-ended list, and indiscriminate. Ohconfucius 04:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jayron32. Korg (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and source - lack of sourcing (as opposed to being unsourceable) is not inherently a reason to delete. If it is not sourced, bring it back here and it should be a slamdunk. Could be a useful article if cleaned up. -- nae'blis 01:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This list simply is not encyclopedic. Moreover, creating a complete version of the list could be impossible. George J. Bendo 00:10, 13 November 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.