Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vilsack

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 keep. Consensus was to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vilsack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Former governor and two-time United States Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is the clear primary topic of this surname. A disambiguation page is not needed, as this can redirect to the primary topic with a hatnote. BD2412 T 04:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a surname page, not a dab page, and the criterion for getting a redirect is higher than the Primary Topic cutoff: Shakespeare yes, but not many more. PamD 07:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Redirects of surnames should IMO only apply to cases like Einstein. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom – If this were a page about the history and etymology of the surname, or served to disambiguate between more people, then there would be value in it, but I don't see value in keeping this page as it is. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this is surname, not dab. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Can anyone provide a source for the proposition that this is, in fact, a surname? Is there any source with an etymology, or any other information about this term as a surname? BD2412 T 02:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is nothing that shows this surname is notable, and thus nothing that shows we need an article on it. We clearly do not need it to list the two notable person who ever had this last name. Especially since the two people listed here are married to each other. The articles are closely linked already, there is absolutely no benefit to having this page. Have the above editors even bothered to pay attention enough to realize that the two people listed here constitute one married couple?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see any problem. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:APO. Not a fan of redirecting surnames unless they are almost synonymous with the name. And then the hatnote would need to cover similar Vilseck.—Bagumba (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PamD, Clarityfiend, and Bagumba. postdlf (talk) 19:45, 30 January 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.