Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most popular given names


 * 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. As a rationale was requested, the arguments that this is simply a directory or definition were appropriately addressed, and it was shown that this is a viable subject for a sourced encyclopedia article, and can include information beyond that which would be appropriate for a dictionary. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

List of most popular given names

 * (View AfD) (View log)

WP:WINAD. This is the last given name list remaining on Wikipedia. This article is merely a list of names belonging to a particular country (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. There is strong precedent for this kind of deletion; recently, all lists of given names have been moved to Wiktionary and deleted, please see the list of discussions below. Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 10:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, Articles for deletion/List of Roman praenomina, Articles for deletion/List of Modern Greek given names, Articles for deletion/List of Spanish given names Articles for deletion/List of Swedish given names, Articles for deletion/List of Latvian given names, Articles for deletion/List of Romanian given names, Articles for deletion/List of Irish given names, Articles for deletion/List of Italian given names, Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish given names, Articles for deletion/Lists of given names, Articles for deletion/List of Hispanic surnames, Articles for deletion/Lists of hypocoristics, Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames, Articles for deletion/List of counterparts of given names, Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames 2, etc.


 * Keep: As I stated a few weeks ago on Dmcdevit's talk page: "Whilst the etymologies and meanings for the individual given names would belong to Wiktionary, I believe that the compiled list itself does not. The article serves a valid encyclopedic function by giving light to the naming diversity across different national and cultural contexts. Kindly also refer to the earlier vote for deletion for the same article." CounterFX 11:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per CounterFX. While I agree with the transwiki'ing of name lists from individual countries, this one is neither useless nor indiscriminate. The comparisons of a single compiled global list are not at all the same matter as etymologies and its presence improves the encyclopedia. --Kizor 13:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was never claimed that the article was useless or indiscriminate, but that it is better suited for a dictionary. Note that all of the given name lists were lists of "most popular" names; they also had a limited scope. None of them included any possible given name, which could have been endless, only the documented popular ones. This is nothing more than the same principle applied on a limited scale for more countries. The reasons for this being unencyclopedic and more worthy of a dictionary still stand: it is a list of words based on word usage (geographical distribution) without any prose about the meaning, in an encyclopedia which prohibits name definition articles, so that links from the names would be unhelpful.
 * Keep. This isn't a static list of given names by national origin, or a list of names with etymological meanings, so it isn't appropriate for a dictionary. In my opinion, it's currently a very long stub, but more detailed encyclopaedic content about international naming trends could be added in the future in order to supplement the tables. -Severa (!!!) 16:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not just a list of names that exist in a country or among a particular group. It is a rather well-sourced (albeit incomplete) and dynamic list of names by country and/or region.  I will not comment on the list's appropriateness for Wiktionary, but will assert that it is definitely appropriate for Wikipedia.  -- Black Falcon 20:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the distinction. You're committing the fallacy of arguing that sources have anything to do with whether something belongs in an encyclopedia or a dictionary, it seems. Wiktionary would strongly disagree with that (wikt:WT:RFV). How is this any more encyclopedic than the rest? Dmcdevit·t 23:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My main point was not sourcing (that's just a plus). My point was that it is not just a (static) listing of names.  It is a (dynamic) list that supplements the article given name by providing information about the commonality and geographic distribution of names--such information would never be found in a dictionary.  -- Black Falcon 04:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there is no essential difference between this list and all the others. You say dictionaries don't cover the geographic distribution of words, but encyclopedias do? You have that exactly backwards: dictionaries specify word usage, like regional usages. Note Wiktionary's wikt:Category:Regional_templates, which create, for example, the "(Irish English)" you'll see before entries like feck. Note also wikt:Category:Scottish_surnames, wikt:Category:English_surnames, wikt:Category:Russian_surnames, etc. Rather, such information should not be found in an encyclopedia, which is about the concept words indicate, not their usage - geographical, popularity, or otherwise - alone. Wikipedia is not a usage guide. I fail to see why this is not a suitable supplement to given name, but the exact same Wikipedia article is. Dmcdevit·t 22:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a world of difference. The examples you have noted are all limited to one country.  The category for Russian names, for instance, identifies only the origin of the names without saying anything about the geographic distribution and/or concentration of those names.  Dictionaries do not cover this type of information: they cover the meanings of names, their origins, and not much else.  wikt:Category:Scottish_surnames identifies names of Scottish origin, but says nothing about the fact that there are plenty of individuals with this name outside of Scotland.  And why should it?  That is not within the scope of a dictionary.  A dictionary should limit itself to identifying words, defining them, and specifying how they originated.  The geographic distribution of names (which is tied in to migration patterns, the political histories of regions, etc.) is beyond the scope of a dictionary.  That sort of information belongs in an encyclopedia.  -- Black Falcon 23:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Regional political upheavals and migration pattersn are encyclopedic content.  The general spread of words and names as a result of those migration patterns is also encyclopedic content.  But information about specific words and names is dictionary content.  The distinction that WP:WINAD draws doesn't have anything to do with the scope of an article or items in a list--it has to do with the subject of the article or of the items in a list. If the subject is a word or name, or if the items in the list are words or names, that's dictionary content.  And the more that can be said about the words or names, the better--but it still goes in Wiktionary not Wikipedia.  Pan Dan 01:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The subject here is obviously not a "specific word or name". It is the frequency of given names across the world.  The subject here is not names, but their frequency.  This is not a static list.  Any of the names on this list could be removed as soon as updated data arrives.  Your point is inapplicable as it misjudges the subject of the list. -- Black Falcon 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. The subject of the list is not the general concept of name frequency.  If it were, it would be titled Onomastic trends and would not be in list form.  I imagine that such an article would be possible to write; it would include observations and extrapolations that outside sources have made by looking at data about specific names like the data that is in this list.  But the list itself is a collection of information about the frequency of specific names, hence it is about specific names.  Pan Dan 19:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First, your last statement is logically fallacious: "the list itself is a collection of information about the frequency of specific names, hence it is about specific names." No, as you justed admitted, it's about frequency.  Second, I never claimed that the subject wsa the "general concept of name frequency".  It's not about the general concept (though I suppose it could be altered to that purpose); it's about the actual frequency.  Third, this is not a list of the frequency of any "specific names" (even if you count 200+ as specific) as it is a dynamic list that changes from year to year.  How can it be about particular names when those names may be justifiably removed one year and re-added the next?  -- Black Falcon 19:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me address your first & second points taken together. I raised the notion of "general concept of name frequency" to make a contrast between the kind of material suited for Wikipedia and the kind of material suited for Wiktionary.  Information about frequencies of specific names is information about those specific names -- i.e. Wiktionary material -- as opposed to information about the "general concept of name frequency," which is Wikipedia material.  On your third point, this really shouldn't be a dynamic list on either Wiktionary or Wikipedia; it should classify the information by year.  But that's not relevant to the question of whether it should go on Wiktionary or Wikipedia.  Pan Dan 20:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is highly relevant. All the other "List of ... names" were just that: static lists of names that exist, and should have been deleted.  This list is entirely different.  This article does not convey information about a specific set of names; rather, it conveys information about a specific set of countries.  The article presents descriptive information about a characteristic of individual countries.  The individual names are of secondary (or even tertiary) importance and relevance as they are replacable.  This article is actually mistitled (not a reason for deletion, by the way).  It is not a list of names, but rather a list of countries. -- Black Falcon 21:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep well-referenced and not just a list of word or definitions. Agree with above keep recommendations: while the names by country article were justifiably transwikied, this article is actually appropriate for Wikipedia. --Canley 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, no one has claimed that it's not a word list, though some claim it can be encyclopedic still. But there is no denying that it is a list of words; there is nearly no prose to speak of. Have you read the article? Dmcdevit·t 22:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I claimed it was not a word list! I'm guessing this was just a typo? Of course, I've read it. What I haven't read is a Wikipedia policy or guideline that says an article must contain prose, please feel free to point me to one. --Canley 05:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as I don't see why the reasons given for deleting it apply, while I see good reasons given above for keeping it. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide a specific rationale. Dmcdevit·t 22:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The most popular given names are a highly notable topic, and I've seen entire websites devoted to the topic, as well as mentions of it in geneology books. Notable topics about which much could potentially be said belong in Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Plus, I do not see any merit, or any basis in Wikipedia policy, in the argument about deleting this list of names just because many other lists of names have been deleted. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A dictionary is the proper place for the definition and usage of words. For lists of names by category, and for showing how the frequency of name usage evolves, I think an encyclopedia is much more suited. –Shoaler (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Shoaler. Carlossuarez46 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Shoaler. Just because it does not explain meaning is no reason to not be included in an encyclopedia; we have many other lists that do not explain meaning either (lists of films, etc.)  This article is interesting and fairly well-referenced. Esn 22:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Shoaler. This is a great, useful, worthy, valuable list.  It's about specific names.  Things about specific names go in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia.  Pan Dan 01:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. WP:WINAD does not require that all "things about names go in Wiktionary", and the idea that everything about names go into a dictionary is dangerously schematic.  There is a branch of linguistics about names (onomastics).  This particular article may be about names, but as several above have implied the synthetic effect of this list places it outside of anything that I've met in any dictionary.  While I'm happy enough to banish most lists of names, this one strikes me as compellingly encyclopedic and very un-dictionary-like.   semper fictilis 04:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't express myself well and have amended my comment. Of course I don't think that material about names as a general category should go in Wiktionary.  See my above response to Black Falcon.  But things about specific names go in Wiktionary.  The list under consideration here is about specific names, not onomastics.  Pan Dan 16:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't know where it might fall on current policy, but as I just came to Wikipedia looking for this precise information, I would have been surprised had it not been here, and would not have thought to look in Wiktionary. --jwandersTalk 09:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The recent discussions have given rise to one very valid point - what about converting the list from a single, dynamic, continually-updated list into a set of static lists by year, such as List of most popular given names in 2006, List of most popular given names in 2007, and so forth? This is already being done for the lists of the United States. This way, results from previous years would not need to be lost whenever a new publication is released. Anyway, maybe it would be better to discuss this matter after the Afd is closed. CounterFX 22:16, 2 March 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.