Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese given names

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was transwiki.

I count 6 clear "delete votes", 12 variations on "keep" votes (one trollish vote ignored) and 2 unclear votes. However, I note that 8 people (on both keep and delete sides) mentioned transwiki as an alternative or as the preferred answer. Noting that transwiki does not destroy history and therefore does not require the overwhelming concensus that deletion requires, I am going to be bold and put this in the transwiki queue. Rossami (talk) 09:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List_of_Japanese_given_names
Another list of names that can never be complete. See List of first names and List of dog names. Radiant! 08:22, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per VfD vote on List of first names and List of dog names. Megan1967 09:23, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know the Japanese word for footfootfoot? Radiant! 11:04, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#12300;&#36275;&#12293;&#12293;&#12301;&#12290; &mdash;Korath (Talk) 05:52, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - could be useful to pages like Behind the Name but not necessarily here - Skysmith 09:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wasn't it established that lists are encyclopedic? If that is true, is it necessary to delete every incomplete list?  -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If they fulfil the purpose of lists they are. And incomplete lists can be marked for expansion in several ways, and should be.  So: Does this one fulfil the purpose of lists? Uncle G 17:09, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * Let's see... Navigation? Not really, unless we get articles on the majority of the listed names. Development, not likely for the same reason. That leaves Information. IMHO such a list would be informative if it listed origin and meaning of the names - but in that case it would belong in Wikisource. Or if Japan had a very limited number of names (like Latin does), otherwise it could never be remotely complete. Radiant! 17:59, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are articles on at least a few of the names. I don't see why there won't be articles on more of them.  --ChrisRuvolo 00:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, will inevitably mislead by lack of context and completeness, and could become a hotbed of stealth vandalism. Wyss 18:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, according to Japanese name, there are limits to the names placed by the government in order to keep the number of Kanji within sane limits. --ChrisRuvolo 18:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Kanji names in Japan are governed by the government's rules on kanji use. There are currently (Oct 2004) 2,232 "name kanji" (the jinmeiy&#333; kanji &#20154;&#21517;&#29992;&#28450;&#23383;) used in personal names, and the government plans to increase this list by 578 kanji in the near future. Only kanji which appear on the official list may be used in given names.  This is to ensure that names can be written and read by those literate in Japanese.
 * All right. Mathematics time:  Assume that names made from that set of characters may be up to two characters long.  How many possible names is that for this page?  How many possible names is it assuming that names may be up to three characters long?  Assume that ChrisRuvolo can romanize one name in 20 seconds.  How long will it take him to romanize the entire list of two character names? Uncle G 19:42, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * Assuming that we do not count names written in hiragana and katakana (which could be a combination of at least 70 different characters, and various lengths), and we only count 2810 kanji letters for the personal names...
 * For two characters long, that would be C(2810, 2). -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2810 squared, or 7,896,100 names. If you subtract the ones consisting of the same character twice, that leaves 7,893,290. Sounds practical, no? :) Radiant! 22:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I never said it would be practical. :) Mathematics and completeness aside, I still find it to be a useful reference.  --ChrisRuvolo 00:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This list is not and may not ever be complete, but I think that even an incomplete list is a useful reference. Josh 18:02, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 05:52, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) (superseded below)
 * Wiktionary? Or some place. Useful to have on line someplace, because it's very useful to know the Kanji for common names. I would say keep unless we can find it another home. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:05, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 23:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As a student of Japanese, this could be a very useful resource.  It could also be a useful reference link from an article on Japanese names.  Being able to look up the kanji of a name from its pronounciation, and vice versa, is very useful, and well within the bounds of Wikipedia, which has become a useful reference for the study of foreign languages through articles such as Japanese language.  I suspect that this will become a top-notch list.  --LostLeviathan 03:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia is not a kanji dictionary. This would belong in Wiktionary, if anywhere in the wikiverse.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 04:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Exploding Boy 17:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki or keep, this list is very useful Kappa 08:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or transwiki. This information does appear to be useful.  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 11:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that's pretty interesting. Would it help if the article was called "List of common Japanese names" instead? Did you see the link to the other entries (List of common XXXX names)? We could add a blurb to each stating that the list is actually of "common names".... What would it be "Transwiki"'d to?? Doesn't "Transwiki" just mean "move to a place where no one can find it"? -- Serge Dupouy 11:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Only if "a place where no-one can find it" in turn means "one of Wikipedia's sibling projects that are mentioned prominently on the main page and in countless places throughout the encyclopaedia", which of course it does not. If you do happen across anyone who cannot find dictionary definitions of words, etymologies of words, or translations of words in the encyclopaedia, please point them towards the dictionary. Uncle G 01:35, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
 * keep Yuckfoo 03:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Deletioncruft nomination.--Centauri 12:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or transwiki. Useful reference information. jni 13:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Potentially useful info, but not for Wikipedia. Carrp | Talk 16:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Bogdan | Talk 17:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Wiktionary has an appendix for given names. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 20:04, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not an encyclopaedic article. JamesBurns 06:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.