Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. If I were closing it factoring purely the strength of argument, it would probably be a delete anyway, as most of the 'keep' arguments are based on "I like it". However, all articles have been transwikied to Wiktionary; this is not only a reason for deletion, but a common reason for speedy deletion. I will not include List of common Chinese surnames at this point, as this is being addressed in a seperate deletion discussion. Proto ► 15:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of surnames

(View log)
List of Hmong surnames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of Norman surnames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of Italian surnames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of Luo surnames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of Jewish surnames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of Slavic surnames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of Maltese surnames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of Japanese surnames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of German surnames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of Middle Eastern surnames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of common Chinese surnames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
List of Old English (Anglo-Saxon) surnames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:WINAD. These article are merely lists of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted.

Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 03:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep List of common Chinese surnames - I don't know about the other articles, but the article for common Chinese surnames have a lot of useful information. It gives both the 1990 and 2006 rankings on how common the 100 most common Chinese surnames are, it gives the romanisation/pronounciations of several different Chinese dialects for each, and it lists the Vietnamese and Korean equivalents for each, if applicable. It's not just a simple list with no other information. As the article explains, the commonality rankings is a researched and published list. A plain list of Chinese surnames would actually be much much larger. The comparative commonality between 1990 and 2006 of these surnames alone would make this list encyclopedic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hesitant delete - If Wikipedia is going to mean anything more than the sum of its parts, this has to be discussed at a principled level. I will withold my final judgement as to whether these categories should be kept or not, but I think we need to be restrictive.--Niohe 05:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep List of common Chinese surnames which is clearly not merely lists of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose, especially given that many of the surnames themselves have individual pages. Weak keep on List of Japanese surnames (many of the links in the article actually lead to placename articles rather than surname articles, which isn't great). cab 05:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    Keep and cleanup (and maybe rename) List of Hmong surnames. It's actually a listing of the Hmong clans, of which 18 exist; this can be cited (e.g. "18 hmong clans" GBooks Google). So this one has definite criteria for inclusion in the list, as well as being at least a weakly notable topic. However, Delete the others (including List of Japanese surnames which I voted weak keep above) as being collections of random information without any particular sourcing or criteria for inclusion, and also being fairly useless for navigation given that half the links in question go to placename articles or disambiguation pages instead of articles about the surnames in question. cab 14:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep List of common Chinese surnames per above. It is not just a list of names, but includes additional (encyclopedic) content. -- Black Falcon 06:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • See below for other articles.
  • All of the above comments only address the List of common Chinese surnames article, because it seems people think that isn't in the same class as the others. As such, it shoudn't be listed in the same batch AfD. I hope it's okay to remove that to list it separately, and consider the others as a class for the rest of this discussion. Dmcdevit·t 09:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It shouldn't be listed at all, seperately, or in this AfD. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete With the exception of the Chinese one, all these articles are just indiscriminate lists - and would perhaps be better off at WikiSource or something. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 11:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. These lists add useful information to Wikipedia, and should be expanded, rather than being deleted. -- The Anome 12:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    See WP:USEFUL. cab 14:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I concur with all else that's been said by people with "keep" votes. There's additional encyclopedic information, plus links to Wikipedia articles... more than useful, this is meaningful and encyclopedic. LordAmeth 15:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • If there is some encyclopedic information in the lists, they should be merged to an article about the naming, not stuck in a list so that we have to keep the unencyclopedic stuff with it. See Japanese name, Vietnamese name, etc. Dmcdevit·t 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki/Keep I think all of them should be added to Wiktionary, then deleted from here. But theres no reason to lose this valuable information forever JameiLei 15:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    The articles are already on Wiktionary. Dmcdevit·t 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Also keep (I commented on List of Chinese surnames above) the following
  1. List of Hmong surnames -- as noted by cab, there are only 18 Hmong clans, "so this one has definite criteria for inclusion in the list".
  2. List of Italian surnames -- provides sourced encyclopedic (non-dictionary) information about commonality of surnames and geographic origin. However, adding {{wikify}} might be a good idea.
  3. Weak keep on List of Jewish surnames (some encyclopedic content provided about historical/geographic distribution)--I am essentially neutral on this one.
  4. Weak keep on List of Japanese surnames -- the article is well-organized and complements Category:Japanese surnames. Some people find lists easier to use than categories. I think keeping this list does no harm and instead makes WP more user-friendly.
  5. As for the rest, delete after transwiki successfully completed. -- Black Falcon 17:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    If there is some encyclopedic information in the lists, they should be merged to an article about the naming, not stuck in a list so that we have to keep the unencyclopedic stuff with it. See Japanese name, Vietnamese name, etc. Dmcdevit·t 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to seeing the List of Hmong, Italian, and Jewish surnames merged into Vietnamese name, Italian name, Hebrew name articles (although not all Jews have Hebrew names). However, I think List of Japanese surnames should still be kept for navigation purposes (I will note again that some people finds lists easier to use than categories. -- Black Falcon 02:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, the Italian name and other articles are mostly about first names. Still, I'm not opposed to a merge, if it can be appropriately performed. -- Black Falcon 02:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Delete, since the information is now on Wiktionary. (There is clearly a difference in usefulness between some of these articles - perhaps it would have been helpful to list them separately - but some, for example List of Old English (Anglo-Saxon) surnames, are so poor that there is nothing to be gained from keeping them either here or on Wiktionary, but that's a different question). HeartofaDog 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:V. Others have argued there's no encyclopedic content at all here, just a list of names, and I won't disagree. The main additional point I want to raise is that there's no verification at all. Without sources, how we tell whether an item on the list really is a common name or not? The claim that particular names are common (iand others not on the list are presumably not) appears to be entirely based on editor's own original research. Editors who wish the lists kept need, at a minimum, to show that reliable sources exist capable of making verification possible. This simply hasn't been done. --Shirahadasha 05:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Note that the List of Hmong surnames identifies a single source, but then the article states the source isn't very accurate. Based on what other source? Thanks. --Shirahadasha 05:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Procedural keep. Although this is a group nomination, these articles are being discussed separately and are not all in the same state of (dis)repair, so they should be nominated separately. Dekimasuが... 06:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsourced directory/dictionary-style lists with too unclear criteria for inclusion. Kusma (討論) 14:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just had a look at the List of common Chinese surnames, and I cannot image any other reason why people want to discuss this page separately other than the fact that we are distracted by the visuality of Chinese characters. Sure, Chinese characters are used for Korean and Vietnamese surnames. But are we to assume that people with these surnames are related to their namesakes in China? If yes, please give a source for that claim. Or are they listed for no other reasons that they correspond to the Chinese surnames. Well, then we are dealing with a typical dictionary article.--Niohe 15:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well firstly, that article has been delisted. But secondly, perhaps that article was misnamed, but it's not a list that's been gathered together by WP editors like most other lists. That list is actually a researched and published list in real life, and the article is about that list. The fact that it gives a commonality ranking for each surname for both 1990 and 2006, so readers can look at the rankings comparatively, already makes that article encyclopedic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I beg to differ and I want to relist the article. This article is a hodge-podge of unencyclopedic assumptions. Most common surname where? In the PRC? Taiwan? In the Chinese-speaking world as a whole? It seems that the list of common surnames is based on the PRC, which begs the question why Korean and Vietnamese names should be ranked according to the commonality in the PRC. If this article should be kept at all he only way this article should be moved to List of common surnames in the PRC, because that is what this article is about.--Niohe 18:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I can't stop you from re-listing it, but the issues you brought up are not criteria for deletion, they're just editorial issues, and the article is far from perfect and could use more work. Like I said, the commonality rankings alone would make the article encyclopedic, plus, the list is a researched and published list. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all and cleanup. The purpose of having these lists on WP is that the articles can add extra dimensions to the names and how the culture uses them. With some cleanup, all of these articles can accomplish that. --Danaman5 17:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Renomination - I would renominate List of common Chinese surnames for deletion as per WP:NOT#DIR. Wikipedia is not genealogical database and listing Chinese character surnames according to commonality in the PRC is unencyclopedic and adds nothing to our understanding of surnames outside of the PRC.--Niohe 18:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, an article on Richard Nixon adds little to our understanding of presidencies outside of the USA. Should that be deleted as well. A geneological database is simply a listing of names without any encyclopedic information (such as rank or related-language equivalents). That is hardly the case here. -- Black Falcon 18:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • ???? I somehow fail to see the validity of the analogy.--Niohe 18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how the commonality rankings or the fact that it's a researched and published list does not make it encyclopedic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The burden of proof is not on me, but on those who want to keep it. The article has already been transwikied, so the information will not be lost. If the article is not be kept in Wikipedia, it should be moved to List of common surnames in the PRC, referring to the only verfied encyclopedic value of the text, which is really just a figleaf as far as I am concerned.--Niohe 19:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the burden of showing how an article meets criteria for deletion falls on the nominator. Also, without further research by WP editors, there is no evidence that the list is applicable only to the PRC. Furthermore, believing that the article should be renamed is not criteria for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't make the discussion more confused than it is, and please respond to my substantive arguments. I have already told you what policy I think this group of articles violate and I have also stated why I think this article is inappropriately named. To the extent that the burden of proof is on me, I have already fulfilled my part. Now the ball is in your court.
As for applicability to the PRC, I note that the article for 2006 states "调查涉及全国１１１０个县和市，得到了２．９６亿人口的数据，共获得姓氏４１００个。" I also note that the book quoted for 1990 is published in Beijing and I think it is reasonable to assume that this book is based on PRC data only.--Niohe 21:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Um... You haven't really said anything substantive. You've cited WP:NOT#DIR, but as I've said, the listing is a researched and published list, it has comparative commonality rankings, etc etc. More than one editor have stated that this is not just a mere list with no other information. And this article is not a genealogy. Please actually read WP:NOT#DIR, the genealogy clause pertains to biological articles or listings of persons to show only genealogical relations. It doesn't even apply to this list because it's not a biographical article, nor is it a genealogy. And again, believing that the article is misnamed is not criteria for deletion - simply to say, do you believe the article should be renamed, or do you believe it should be deleted? There are two completely different sets of criteria for the two. Also, just because it was published in Beijing, and that it says it's about common surnames in the whole country does not necessarily mean it excludes Taiwan. If this publication is PRC-government related at all, I'm pretty sure it will claim to include Taiwan. But this whole issue is a different discussion altogether. You've mentioned nothing that actually warrants the deletion of this article. It just seems like you don't like it, that's all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to most of these points at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common Chinese surnames.--Niohe 01:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Personally I think it was way to early for Japanes surnames to be transwikied, considering there are way over 200,000 Japanese surnames in existence. If this list was deleted, what you would have is a very incomplete list that has been transwikied with no access to the easiest of the wikies, and the information on a much less used wiki, to edit on to help fill in gaps and finish it.Williamb 22:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't understand this comment at all. Could you please explain why the articles are encyclopedic? Transwikied articles aren't erased, it still exists at wikt:Appendix:Japanese surnames where it can be expanded. Wiktionary is a wiki just like Wikipedia. Dmcdevit·t 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • New Nomination - I have started a new nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common Chinese surnames.--Niohe 00:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as the other surnames were. Usedup 02:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • keep --Java7837 04:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • keep -- I don't see how Wiktionary is appropriate for this at all; and, given the fact that the Chinese article contains some referenced info above and beyond most of the articles, perhaps everyone's time would be better spent tagging the other articles for improvement (not deletion), or, even working on the article content, instead of debating the same points over and over. Neier 14:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Rescind wikt remarks, after finding http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Names - Neier 14:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment - The burden of improving the articles rather than deleting them falls on those who want to keep them - not on those who want to delete.--Niohe 14:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
And, my point being that articles in need of improving should not even be brought to AFD to begin with. WP:DEL#Editing (There used be an instructive table regarding this, but, it has disappeared in the past few days. The gist remains, however). It is that type of "Improve this article in the next five days, or else" posturing that is starting to grow old. Neier 23:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • keep article is encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammertime123 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-19 19:25:16
  • Marginal delete -- I'm assuming articles like Mottershead and Jones are not to be transwikied... If they're staying, then the majority of these articles offer very little that a decent categorization wouldn't.
  • Keep, the List of Jewish surnames is very useful and links to good articles and is a perfect source for information in Category:Hebrew names. IZAK 08:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - The list of Jewish surnames is interesting, but it is not an encyclopedic article at all. Just a list with a lot of red links. It should be transferred to Wiktionary.--Niohe 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as the creator of the List of Luo surnames, I can say that the comment "no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose" does not apply there. There is a brief description of Luo nomenclature/name structure, then most of the surnames listed have a "meaning" or explanatory note after them. The argument, therefore, does not always hold.... Valerius Tygart 18:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - The List of Luo surnames is one of the worst examples of unencyclopedic articles. I doesn't even lead anywhere else. I would suggest that you rewrite the article into a generic article about Luo surnames. As it stands now, it just a worthless list with little content.--Niohe 01:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your careful & thoughtful comments! Have a NICE day... ;-) Valerius Tygart 14:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete totally and utterly worthless. Thedreamdied 00:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean-up all per the above. If one article should be kept, they all should, as they all have the same potential. JQF • Talk • Contribs 17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - The same potential?! Another example of circular reasoning.--Niohe 01:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong, speedy keep - I use these articles all the time in my own research. Why would a Wikipedian try to remove information that others use frequently and is, in fact, essential to their research? Incomprehensible. Please improve Wikipedia in some other....productive way. Badagnani 03:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
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.