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. I weighted the various comments. So comments citing things like inherent POV and existence of RS got extra weight, and arguments citing the age of the article or just saying delete were down-weighted. In the final examination, it seemed that the argument that the inclusion criterion on the list were impossible to determine to the point that it would not remain as an article. MBisanz ^talk 08:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual personal names[edit]

List of unusual personal names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Lists of "unusual" things are having mixed fortunes in the article namespace currently. Some have been deleted; reasons cited include that they are "unencyclopaedic", that "unusual" is in the eye of the beholder and thus contravenes our neutral point of view policy, that such lists are not verifiable, and that such a list amounts to original research. I have no opinion on this subject, other than our deletion decisions in this area should be consistent, and so I'm adopting a neutral stance. Note however that this deletion nomination seeks to establish community consensus for this article, not for others. Two previous deletion discussions (the two to the right plus Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of unusual personal names) have resulted in the article's retention. SP-KP (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There doesn't appear to have been a second nomination for this article; why is this the third? GlassCobra 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The first nomination was a Vote for Deletion in the pre-AfD days. I agree that this is only the second AfD, but it's a fair point that this is in fact its third deletion discussion, I suppose. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as inherently POV. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is inherently POV and could possibly be speedied for not asserting notability or significance Pstanton 19:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

• Keep There are quite possibly sources on these lists, and on the topic of names, out there that could add to this article and confirm that this is not original research.Critical Chris (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Unusual" is POV. I don't see what makes this list notable either. TJ Spyke 21:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonencyclopedic. Looie496 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A nice thing for a userpage maybe, but intrinsically impossible to have a NPOV on. Collect (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Am I the only one of the opinion that this is indeed in the spirit of "sharing knowledge"? I found the list not only interesting, but potentially helpful in my current position. I move to retain. 67.83.85.236 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. If this wasn't sourced I'd have voted to delete, but as it is, it seems OK with sourcing, although there needs to be either culling of unsourced names (per WP:BLP) or additional sources added for those that don't have any. The title of the article and the use of the word "unusual" needs a bit of examination as that comes off a bit OR'y. Maybe something like List of Notable People with Unconventional Personal Names or something like that. 23skidoo (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is what we look for when writing about a subject on Wikipedia-- verifiable sources to support the entries. The subject of names is notable enough that it has been addressed since the days of H.L. Mencken, if not before. Articles acknowledging that something has been described as "unusual" by others are not POV. While the subject may not appeal to everyone, an encyclopedic article about even an unusual topic should be kept. Mandsford (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have no idea what's supposed to qualify a name for this list. For example, why is Ransom Love listed? His name might be antiquated, but it has a respectable history. WillOakland (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete defining what constitutes an "unusual name" is nigh impossible. JuJube (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is sourced and it's simple to define what constitutes an "unusual name". If a reliable source deems it unusual, then it can go in the list.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  02:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - This is sourced and can serve as a placeholder for names without their own articles. 72.83.185.150 (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: This can be used with sources backing the inclusion/exclusion of each name. However, I was thinking that the content is valuable and sourced, and even if we don't want an article for "unusual personal names," and want to migrate these to separate pages, we need some place for names without their own articles. 72.83.185.150 (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unusual is in the eye of the beholder. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reliable sources don't have universal agreement on what is considered an "unusual name" - let alone a universal definition. --Madchester (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We don't need "universal agreement" on a topic in order to document it, otherwise we couldn't have articles on topics like Beauty, Terrorism, Pornography, or Christianity. NPOV only requires that we fairly document any controversy where it exists in reliable sources. However, I doubt there is much "controversy" surrounding what names are "unusual", that is, you will find few, if any, reliable sources saying something like "Creedence Clearwater Couto is not an unusual name for a person." Sure, unusual is in the eye of the beholder, but if the beholder is a reliable source, then we can document it. DHowell (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-- Article has been around since 2004 and is sourced, I trust the consensus of the editors over the years on what is considered an "unusual name". --J.Mundo (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many of the "Unusual Names" are well sited, so what's the problem? Besides, According to Jimmy Wales, isn't the purpose of Wikipedia for "the entire sum of all human knowledge to be available to anyone on the planet"? This list may be irrelevant, but its contents are not fictitious. Also, we all need a bit of humour in our lives, don't we? User: Anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.249.178 (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. But it needs some serious cleaning-out, and constant vigilance to keep at bay the frequent additions of (a) names that some WP editor or other finds amusing and (b) tedious publicity-seeking minor "celebrities". Nothing should be included unless an external reliable source comments on the unusualness of the name. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2009 (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.