Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawaiian name

Hawaiian name was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 KEEP. At least 8 votes to keep, 2 votes to delete. Postdlf 06:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hawaiian name

Wikipedia is not a list of names. RickK 23:53, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Pardon me, there are already other rich articles on Wikipedia for lists of names. See also Hebrew name and list of Hebrew names. They are well appreciated by the people who browse them. - Gilgamesh 00:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Look, I have User:Marshman's blessing and promise of participation with this article. I discussed it with him at User_talk:Marshman#Authentic_traditional_Hawaiian_names.3F , then I started a stub. Eight minutes after I polished the stub, you started this vfd. - Gilgamesh 00:24, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I object to this deletion.--Josiah 00:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep, valid encyclopedia topic. -Sean Curtin 01:45, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Other lists of names should go too. It doesn't matter whose blessing you have. When will the madness end? --Improv 02:50, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course it is an encyclopedic topic. It explains the meanings and usages of the names, at least when it's complete. There are tons of lists on Wikipedia. Lists of programming languages, lists of volcanoes, lists of people who died in 9/11, etc. It is linguistic and informative, and it should stay. - Gilgamesh 03:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is a difference between encyclopedic topics and encyclopedic articles. Both must be there for things to be worth keeping, although we can usually take the 2nd on credit. If the topic is not encyclopedic, the best article in the world is still not worth keeping. --Improv 15:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, this list belongs on Wikipedia. —siroχo 04:24, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep. An article similar to the cited example (Hebrew name) would be fine. This article, however, doesn't explain the meaning of one single name. Authors shouldn't be surprised when articles like this get listed on VfD. An article or stub in this preliminary state should generally be saved on your hard drive, not on Wikipedia. Are you upset that it was listed after only eight minutes? Sorry, but there's a lot of unmitigated junk posted, and the most effective way to catch it is for people to monitor Recent Changes. Yes, if I notice something like this, I could make a note on my hard drive to remind me to come back to it in a week and see if it's turned into something worth keeping. The better alternative, though, is for the author to give it a little more substance first. Having unburdened myself of that rant, I vote Keep because I'll trust the author to improve it. JamesMLane 07:13, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Marshman promised his help. We discussed this project in advance. Besides, there's nothing wrong with starting a legitimate stub — that's what the stub feature is for. It shows that the material is incomplete and hoped to expand. I make stubs all the time, and many people gradually build on them. List of Hebrew names, Hebrew languages, magic brownie, Fuyu languages, and various articles and categories concerning volcanoes. This has worked time and time again — I don't appreciate being prejudged in this sense just because lots of crackpots post a lot of meaningless stubs. - Gilgamesh 09:43, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've also made stubs. Sometimes a short article with little information is worth keeping, even if not promptly expanded, and sometimes it isn't. This one wouldn't be worth keeping in its current form. (It's nowhere close to your initial version of Hebrew name, for example.) I'm sorry if you feel you're being prejudged, but please note that I voted to keep, somewhat as an act of faith; also, the practical reality is that people do look at new articles to find the junk, so authors should try to make sure that the first version of a new article will have at least enough in it to survive VfD. JamesMLane 17:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Arabic name, Hebrew name and List of Hebrew names provide a fine precedent, and it could become an interesting article. - Mustafaa 10:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I find this listing a bit odd. There are all kinds of "lists" on Wikipedia. Why would this subject not be encyclopedic and others (see List of Hebrew names, List_of_garden_plants) not be? While some lists are potentially redundant with the concept of Categories, this is not the case here. The list envisioned would include information about each item and the items would not each warrant a separate article. I would suggest the article name be changed to Hawaiian proper names to better establish it as more than a simple list. - Marshman 17:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Not inherently un-encyclopedic, and I trust these editors to expand it. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 04:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful and interesting if expanded. -- Necrothesp 15:09, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep -- Cabalamat 22:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can we remove the template from the article yet, or is there something else that needs to be addressed? - Gilgamesh 03:23, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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