Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surnames in Ukraine

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 no consensus. After greatly extended time for discussion, there is no sign of developing a consensus. Issues with the article may be resolved by setting standards for removing red links, requiring notability (such as limiting the list to the demonstrably most common surnames, or surnames connected to notable people, or some combination of these limitations), and perhaps requiring a source for every name to be included on the list. BD2412 T 03:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of surnames in Ukraine

[Hide this box]New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article has stood for over 10 years without having its notability challenged. It is essentially an indiscriminate directory-style list of Ukrainian surnames and I'm guessing its intention is to be an exhaustive list of every surname in Ukraine. I feel it fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG but I'm open to being proved wrong. Spiderone 16:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous consensus to delete:

Related discussions:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to create an exhaustive list of every surname in Ukraine. Unlike e. g. Chinese or Korean surnames, Ukrainian surnames may have any length and may be created from nearly any word using a loose set of rules. Is it possible to create an exhaustive list of surnames that are used in the UK or USA?
Moreover, it is not clear what surnames are considered to be "in Ukraine". For example, there is a sizeable ethnic minority of Koreans in Ukraine. Should the surnames of these Koreans also be included in the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A31A:A044:5D80:AE0F:41F1:400C:691D (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be renamed to List of Ukrainian-language surnames to give a clear and appropriate scope that matches the category. postdlf (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The renaming would not be appropriate since the article's intention is to be an exhaustive list of all surnames that exist in Ukraine rather than a list of surnames that originate from the Ukrainian language. Spiderone 21:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and per WP:CLN as complement to Category:Ukrainian-language surnames, which includes 421 surname articles. postdlf (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion rationale is best summarised in this section of policy, which states "As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them, but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper." This article violates that because it is an indiscriminate list of every Serbian given name and is largely unverifiable. Spiderone 21:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the solution to that is to make it discriminate and verifiable by limiting it to only those with articles (just as we’d just remove the non notable garage bands in the example you quote). Are you unfamiliar with that common editing practice for lists, or the fact that we do not delete content for fixable issues? Your comment above that it would be inappropriate to fix it honestly doesn’t make any sense; we’re never prevented from improving content by someone’s prior intent. And policy requires that such alternatives to deletion are considered. postdlf (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered the alternative of just keeping the blue link surnames but then I still don't see how the list would be encyclopaedic; it would still be just a directory list of surnames that are considered to be Ukrainian. Spiderone 10:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it would index our articles by what they are. That's enough, because "Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." postdlf (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think being encyclopaedic and verifiable should take priority over any of this alleged usefulness Spiderone 14:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what limiting the entries to articles only would accomplish, as was already said. If they are not verifiable as Ukrainian surnames, they also should not be categorized as such or listed, and the remedy for that is to remove incorrect entries. Certainly some names are verifiable, and presently the category includes well over 400. I honestly don't understand your underlying argument; assuming you actually understand how lists of articles work or that AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP (and you've demonstrated awareness of neither). Are you are claiming that whether a surname is Ukrainian or Serbian or Russian is inherently unverifiable? I don't think that's plausible, but regardless that's a much bigger discussion because we have an entire category structure based around that, Category:Surnames by language, indicating that many editors believe otherwise. You've instead started four identical nominations separately, which is honestly an obnoxious way to proceed because the same discussions are proceeding on each one at the same time with the same arguments copied and pasted. If you're not going to withdraw to do a group nomination (as you should have done in the first place), then you should add links to each of the AFDs pending so the discussions are connected. You couldn't even keep straight which of your own nominations you're posting in, as you've referred to "Serbian" above and in other non-Serbian nominations. postdlf (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the typo but the clarity in meaning was still there. Please see the top of the article. As you can see, previous consensus does suggest that these articles do not belong in Wikipedia. If consensus is now to keep this article, then it will represent a change in consensus on these types of articles. I'm hoping a few more Wikipedians get involved and we'll see which way the consensus goes. Spiderone 12:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those AFDs are all 13 or 14 years old now, and some were kept, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common Chinese surnames which you did not link for some reason. Category:Surnames by language has existed since 2007. So there is clearly a current and widespread practice of classifying names by language. You've not addressed why we shouldn't do it in lists when it is done in categories; it is the same practice either way. postdlf (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't necessarily agree that categories for surnames/given names by language should be kept either but that's a different discussion for a different day and is not an argument to keep these articles even if we do, for argument's sake, get consensus that the categories should be kept. Spiderone 16:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CLN applies when the list can provide something beyond mere alphabetized links. This article does not, and should not be kept unless demonstrated to provide something better than being a context-free directory. Information such as prevalence can also go at Eastern Slavic naming customs or Ukrainian name. Reywas92^Talk 02:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually not what WP:NOTDUP says; CLN applies regardless. Lists don't need to be annotated to justify their existence, though they always can be. postdlf (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: legit list per WP:CLN, WP:NOTDUP states: "building a rudimentary list of links is a useful step in improving a list. Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks" and WP:AOAL lays out potential advantages. // Timothy :: talk 14:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And per appropriate topics for lists, we have "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example, a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value." and "Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge." This article covers a topic that is too large, unverifiable and, most importantly, has no place in an encyclopaedia. Also see WP:ITSUSEFUL which is basically what your argument is. Spiderone 14:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was directly quoting a relevant guideline, which does indeed speak to the useful functions lists provide, as do all list guidelines. postdlf (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (changed vote): I was reading this discussion Spiderone posted and the mention of "List of Jewish names" startled me. I actually can't believe it didn't occur to me immediately what various lists of names that usually to belong to a particular group have been used for historically. This may not have occured to others as well. I know this was absolutely not in anyway the intention with these Wikipedia lists, but good intentions can be used by those with other than good intentions. This is enough for me to switch to Delete. I doubt there is a policy or guideline to directly support this reasoning, but per WP:IGNORE I think Delete is the best way to improve the encyclopedia. // Timothy :: talk 07:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Jewish names has existed since 2012. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Spiderone 09:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "Ukrainian surnames" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources
1. Hu, Zhengbing; Buriachok, V.; Sokolov, V. (2020). "Deduplication Method for Ukrainian Last Names, Medicinal Names, and Toponyms Based on Metaphone Phonetic Algorithm". In Hu, Zhengbing; Petoukhov, Sergey; Dychka, Ivan; He, Matthew (eds.). Advances in Computer Science for Engineering and Education III. Cham: Springer Nature. p. 521. ISBN 978-3-030-55505-4. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
  The book notes:
  
  Analysis of the Sample of Last Names
  After normalization process of the last names, statistics were collected by the most common names. Based on these statistics, a list of last names with a frequency of use of more than 0.3% of the total number of last names (from 6,100 times) was formed. Table 1 provides examples of the most commonly used last names with a frequency of more than 0.8% (for transliteration into the Latin script was used BGN/PCGN Romanization in the 1965 edition). The female version of the last name is given through a slash.
  The table is captioned "Table 1. The most common Ukrainian last names."
  The last names listed are Mel'nyk, Shevchenko, Boyko, Kovalenko, Bondarenko, Tkachenko, Koval'chuk, Kravchenko, Ivanov/Ivanova, Oliynyk, Koval', Shevchuk, Polishchuk, Tkachuk, Bondar, Marchenko, Lysenko, Moroz, Savchenko, Rudenko, Petrenko, and many other names.
2. Pugh, Stefan M.; Press, Ian (1999). Ukrainian: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. pp. 90–93. ISBN 0-415-15029-9. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
  The book has these subsections: (1) 2.3.5.1 Declension of masculine surnames and (2) 2.3.5.2 Declension of feminine surnames.
3. Pihach, John D. (2007). Ukrainian Genealogy. Edmonton: The University of Alberta Press. p. 41. ISBN 978-1-894865-05-0. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
  The book notes:
  
  Ukrainian surnames have been discussed and described in many publications. Much of the literature is in Ukrainian, but some information is also available in English. In addition to the titles cited in this chapter, see: F. Bohdan, Dictionary of Ukrainian Surnames in Canada (Winnipeg: UVAN, 1974). This compilation of thirty thousand surnames includes a short essay, “Anthroponymic Changes in Canada and the USA" by J. B. Rudnyckyj.
  Luba Fedorkiw, “Ukrainian Surnames in Canada,” MA thesis, University of Manitoba, 1977.
  John-Paul Himka, "Solving Last Name Mysteries," Nase Leude Bulletin, summer 1994, [2–4].
  William F. Hoffman, Polish Surnames: Origins and Meanings, rev. ed. (Chicago: Polish Genealogical Society)
  ...
4. Chornous, Oksana (2018). "A Classification of Ukrainian Surnames Derived from the Proper Names of Persons on the Basis of Appearance". Onomastica (in Ukrainian). 62. Institute of Polish Language (Polish Academy of Sciences). doi:10.17651/ONOMAST.62.10. ISSN 0078-4648. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
5. Bohdan, Forwin (1974). Dictionary of Ukrainian surnames in Canada. Winnipeg: Onomastic Commission of UVAN and Canadian Institute of Onomastic Sciences. OCLC 900692.
6. Radion, Stepan (1981). Dictionary of Ukrainian surnames in Australia. Melbourne: Academia Scientiarum Mohylo-Mazepiana Ukrainensis. ISBN 978-0-9592368-0-4. OCLC 10132642.
7. Holutiak-Hallick, Stephen P (1994). Dictionary of Ukrainian surnames in the United States. New York: Slavic Onomastic Research Group. OCLC 977633831.
The list is not indiscriminate.
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information says Wikipedia articles should not be: "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of statistics", and "Exhaustive logs of software updates". This article is none of these, so it is not indiscriminate.

The list might never be complete, which is fine.
It is fine for the list never to be complete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists:
Because of Wikipedia's role as an almanac and a gazetteer as well as an encyclopedia, it contains a large number of lists. Some lists, such as the list of U.S. state birds, are typically complete and unlikely to change for a long time.Some lists, however, cannot be considered complete, or even representative of the class of items being listed; such lists should be immediately preceded by the {{Expand list}} template, or one of the topic-specific variations that can be found at Category:Hatnote templates for lists. Other lists, such as List of numbers, may never be fully complete, or may require constant updates to remain current – these are known as "dynamic lists", and should be preceded by the {{Dynamic list}} template.
General notability guideline
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I totally agree with the other delete voters. This list is indiscriminate, full of useless links, isn't sourced, and ultimately isn't useful. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT as unnecessary and not encyclopedic. Wm335td (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails INDISCRIMINATE, LISTN and NOTDIR. Ravenswing 22:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the analysis of Cunard. WP:LISTN gives several reasons why lists can exist and Cunard does an excellent job of showing how several of those reasons suggest that this is an appropriate article. The idea that our content could be used for harm should not be dismissed but is not, in this case, a policy or guideline based reason to support deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't convince myself to stop thinking that this article violates "NOTDIR". Other countries have more surnames and it is possible that the page will become so large that it will be difficult to maintain the size. There is not enough relevance of this page. Santosh L (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Cunard - I'm not suggesting that Ukrainian surnames are not a notable topic and, indeed, some of those references that you have found could be used in the article Ukrainian surnames; I am simply arguing that an exhaustive list of every single surname possessed by a Ukrainian is unencyclopaedic and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Spiderone 09:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 03:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep - We have lots of pages about Ukrainian surnames, so a navigational list is perfectly reasonable. But definitely opposed to trying to create some exhaustive list of all surnames that exist (a WP:SALAT problem, among others), regardless of whether there's an article. Keep, and remove all of the redlinks and cross-wiki links. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep changing my !vote based on Rhododendrites rationale, WP:LISTN criteria: the list helps readers navigate. If editors think that the list is indiscriminate - it can be trimmed as Rhododendrites has suggested Wm335td (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 11. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LC is an essay. Wm335td (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LC #2 says The list is of interest to a very limited number of people: a list of names of a whole county is of interest to a very limited number of people, really? #3 The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: NOTDIR is highly subjective. #7 The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category: directly contradicts WP:CLN which is a guideline. #8 The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopedia: nonsense. #11 The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date: completeness is not a requirement, there's WP:NODEADLINE. SD0001 (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LISTN is clearly met, as would be the case with a list of names of any country. INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDIR are not really applicable when LISTN is met. Without there being annotations at the moment, this is quite redundant to the category but that's generally not a problem per WP:NOTDUPE. SD0001 (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTPURPOSE being soundly met. ——Serial 16:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN, notable subject as covered by Cunard's sources. Nomian (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2020 (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.