- 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 DELETED as a geneological entry. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable, As the article says, Motzko is a relatively unpopular Polish ,and sometimes Ukrainian surname. The only justification for such a page would be for disambiguation of people with that name, and the only person listed does not link to an active entry. Hackwrench 21:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, including genealogical entries. It seems that the creator of the page also has that last name. Fabricationary 22:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if you're going to be anal over everything, I guess you might as well recommend pages for deletion like 'Johnson', 'Wilson', 'Fernandez', and 'Smith' too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amotzko (talk • contribs)
- Keep - I used this page to gain information, which proved very useful to me. I return to see the deletion reccomendation, which I was surprised at. It is a useful page which could be improved further, but it's not like it can be confused with anything else - so I say keep it. Ray harris1989 04:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 20:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. nn nonverifiable, probably original research. `'mikka (t) 01:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's no article for my last name, which is a lot more common, or most names, except as DAB pages. Fan-1967 02:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, albeit with a request to expand - That there is no article for another more common surname is hardly a reason to delete. Etymology is useful and encyclopedic. Wikipedia, in spite of what some folks appear to think, is a relational database and can keep a tremendous array of data, unlike its paper predecessor, Encyclopedia Britannica. Pull weeds, but nurture shoots. Williamborg 01:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this weed Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --DarkAudit 02:21, 27 July 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.