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 completely without prejudice as to creating a sourced article by this name or on this topic. --BigDT 04:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet (surname)[edit]

Sweet_(surname) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Proposed deletion because the article cannot represent all people with this name in all places, more likely one families geneology... Might be acceptable if heavily rewritten. HoratioVitero 19:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as apparent original research. --Hyperbole 21:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 22:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete due to lack of sources – Qxz 10:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. -- Necrothesp 13:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - it seems to fit with most of our surname articles. DS 14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not supposed to represent all people with the name, it's supposed to discuss the history of the name, which is perfectly encyclopedic. I'm sure sources can be found for this, so I would suggest pushing this to a relevant project for cleanup. It would be a shame to delete an article for a lack of sources if they can be found. We can always revisit deletion later if sources don't surface. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The Kinslayer 10:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete due to lack of sources and notability in current form. Agreed that might be acceptable with a massive overhaul. Suriel1981 14:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the history of each surname is encyclopedic, we'll be overrun with them -- worse yet, many surnames have different histories. Notable Sweets are already at Sweet. That ought to be enough. Carlossuarez46 07:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is poorly written and unsourced, but yes the history of a surname is certainly encyclopedic, provided the article otherwise meets standards for verifiability. older ≠ wiser 20:36, 25 February 2007 (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.