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 Consensus to delete.

With a pure vote count this seems like a close debate, however if the content of the opinions as related to policy is taken into account then there is a clear consensus for deletion. I count 19 people who think the criteria for this article is subjective and as such not encyclopedic. This opinion seems rooted in policy and our goal of creating an encyclopedia.

This has been somewhat countered by 5 people who believe the sources make the content non-subjective, and 3 people who believe the article can be fixed. These opinions also seem rooted in policy and our goal of creating an encyclopedia. Despite this there is a clear favour for deletion of the article.

Arguments that only involve stating how many nominations this article has had in the past are given little weight as they have no basis in policy. Wikipedia is not run off of precedent and consensus can change. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual personal names[edit]

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

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

Delete. This is an inherently subjective list, even with sources it runs afoul of our NPOV policy. We are not here to promote what is "unusual" at the time. JBsupreme (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this piece of subjective listcruft. Who is the judge on what is an "unusual name"? If Joan Rivers says "Hrm...Angelina Jolie has an unusual name" in her stand-up routine and the press pick up on it, does that mean that it should be included on the list? What I'm trying to say is that one person's view of an "unusual name" is another person's norm. Also, this article is very Western-centric and some entries could be perceived as racist; I find Lojze Peterle's name unusual because I'm not Slovenia, for example. However, I can see this being kept due to the result of this recent AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination). WossOccurring (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's best to stick to actual examples, especially when discussing NPOV issues, rather than inventing "what if" scenarios. Neither Lojze Peterle nor Angelina Jolie are included in the list.
    I agree that some of the entries could be debated/removed (eg. Condoleezza Rice), but that is a content dispute, not a reason for deleting the entire article. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The key here is that a majority of the names on the list are backed by reliable sources, and those sources document both that the names exist and that they were indeed unusual. We need to cull names from the list that pertain to living persons, and for which no sources exist - and there are some speculative entries that need addressing. But, so long as we comply with BLP, I think the list can stay. I don't believe that the List of YouTube celebrities AFD is a great precedent, since the main reason that article was kept is that the delete arguments focused on LISTCRUFT as a rationale. The NPOV argument is stronger; so long as we have sources saying that the names listed are indeed unusual, I think we satisfy that policy as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what about a case where the unusualness of the name is in dispute? We would be saying that one side is more correct than the other, because the article name says that the name is definitely unusual, even if the other party believes that it isn't unusual at all. To my mind, this violates NPOV policy. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that the fact that the name is highlighted in a reliable source as being unusual would be sufficient. To offset that, we'd need a source that says, for example, "Chad Ochocinco's name seems unusual, but athletes named after their jersey numbers are more common than most people expect..." and showing that the name is not itself unusual. In cases where we have contradictory reliable sources, it falls to the talk page to discuss the matter, weigh the sources, and determine where consensus lies. It's possible that some names wouldn't pass muster, but that's a flaw of the entries and not the list. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the 4th nomination (various arguments and the close statement) from 30 April 2009. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —-- Quiddity (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I have not been involved in previous nominations, but I think think the nominator's right that this list is more subjective than it is objective. Undoubtedly these people have had coverage, but that doesn't mean any of that coverage is notable, and more importantly, there's no evidence that the coverage indicates the unusual nature of the name is notable, only that a few people have unusual names and that some local newspapers commented on it. Shadowjams (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If something is covered in reliable sources then this is evidence that it is notable as this is what notability means - that the fact has been noted. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteinherently ambivalent criteria for inclusion. i know some of them will have refs saying they are unusual, but that still leaves us with a subjective criteria.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ultraexactzz. If reliable sources document that those names are unusual and it amounts to coverage that satisfies our notability guidelines, there is no reason to delete the list. I cannot see how "people whose names have been called unusual by reliable source" can be considered a "ambivalent" or "subjective" criterion. There is nothing violating WP:NPOV in having this kind of list, we do not say "those names are unusual", we say "reliable third-party sources those names are unusual" and that's what NPOV is about. And of course WP:LISTCRUFT is a non-argument as an essay that does not reflect consensus. Regards SoWhy 17:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What is the gain in removing it? The loss is pretty obvious, it seems to me. - Jmabel | Talk 21:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few problems. One, the sources in many cases do not actually indicate notability of the subjects listed (a problem which can be corrected through editing and removal of said persons in most cases.) Two, the list is highly subjective and violates our NPOV policy, hence this nomination for deletion. JBsupreme (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? I created this, I would not be that unhappy it if was deleted. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - good lord, this article has an excessive number of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish criteria for inclusion. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I consider this article to be both interesting and useful, and I suppose that many other readers likewise would consider it to be both interesting and useful. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question I find this list to be subjective and borderline offensive. It is chock full of children (minors under 18 years of age) that are barely notable at best because their parents gave them an uncommon name at birth. There is an inordinate number of children of Hollywood actors here. I am dismayed at many of the keep !votes here and would like to ask those who have voted such to explain what kind of inclusion guidelines we should have if this list is to be retained? JBsupreme (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• One more comment We do not publish the real name of the infamous Star Wars Kid, citing WP:BLP and "do no harm". Why then is it we are maintaining a list of children much younger than Star Wars Kid (at the time the meme began) who are named something they have no control over? Is a person really notable if some local newspaper happens to mention someone was given an "unusual" name by their parents on a slow news day? I'm reading comments like "The loss it pretty obvious" and "article has an excessive number of independent reliable sources" and cannot help but strongly disagree with that line of thinking. I don't see how this article benefits Wikipedia editors, passive readers, or the living subjects being covered. JBsupreme (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see Think of the children which explains why such special pleading is disreputable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article topic is inherently subjective, even if backed by sources - the fact that a source calls a name unusual does not necessarily make a name unusual. At most the title could be "list of personal names called unusual in the media" or some such. Anyway this would be a special case of the guideline of people notable for a single event, the event being their naming. The name would have to be so unusual that it had caused specific consequences for its bearer for any unusually named person to be considered notable under that guideline. Secondly there are the BLP concerns which I think are fair. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• add: the best argument for deletion is probably WP:NOT.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: sadly, while I created this article, when I think about it this is really quite subjective. I think it probably best to delete. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, WossOccurring, and Maunus. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 13:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WossOccurring's argument is a straw man - material which he has fabricated and which does not appear in the article. As he has not considered the article which we have but is dealing in fantasy, his argument carries no weight. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A subjective mess. Most of the names appear to be intentionally zany pseudonyms that are designed to get attention. There is also some BLP problems. Warrah (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, particularly per Warrah and Tbsdy. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if all statements are sourced, otherwise move to WP space like Wikipedia:List of unusual articles. Individual entries do not need at all to be notable for WP:N, since that's something that is related to full articles only. As per the "benefit", well, it is within the scope of WP to collect and structure information for the public. The fact it is "full of children" is utterly irrelevant: not our fault if they have names covered in the media for being unusual. --Cyclopia^talk 19:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would be a misuse of the Wikipedia namespace. The Wikipedia namespace is about pages that are to do with Wikipedia, no articles should be in this namespace. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete criteria for inclusion far too vague and, in the end, subjective. Rodhullandemu 19:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Unusual" is a subjective criterion for inclusion in a list, and that alone should be reason enough to seal the deal on this debate. Those arguing to keep are correct in stating that there are abundant sources in this list, and if the concern here were one of notability or verifiability this argument would be persuasive; however it does nothing to address the central concern that it is simply too subjective. Shereth 19:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would a move to "List of personal names considered unusual" help? This would make it clear that we report what RS have said about the names. --Cyclopia^talk 19:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that really accomplishes, then, is to enshrine the POV of countless biographers, news reporters, PR agencies and the like into a Wikipedia article. Maunus states it well above in citing WP:NOT; a "List of X that Y has considered Z" certainly falls within that description. Shereth 19:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it may be unusual to be loved by anyone, but it's definitely not usual to have completely subjective, undefinable articles in encyclopedias.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is quite false as most topics have some element of subjectivity in defining their scope. This is obviously true of broad philosophical topics such as Love and Evil. It also applies to topics which have a nebulous boundary such as science fiction and money. Even matters such as the length of rivers require numerous subjective decisions of measurement and inclusion. All such topics are routinely included in encyclopedias and we are no different. The way in which we determine what to say is to rely upon the statements of reliable sources - the method which we use for all our articles - and this is no different. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too broadly subjective to be a reasonable list, potential BLP concerns (what determines if a person's name is unusual? It's mildly defamatory to maintain a list of people who can be derided merely for their name). No reasonable criteria to add someone to the list other than "some random opinion piece was published somewhere that someone said they thought this was a weird name". Seriously, Wikipedia is better off without this. As a last option to WP:PRESERVE some of this, some of the bluelinked entries could be selectively merged into Wikipedia:List of unusual articles, but otherwise this list should not be. --Jayron32 21:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- entirely fixable. All the above complaints are addressable with only a modicum of effort. The list can be made non-subjective (and thus compliant with WP:NPOV) if we insist that all names in the list be specifically identified as "unusual" (or words to that effect) in reliable sources, and compliant with WP:V if we cite said sources. As for the BLP-based arguments, BLP wisely counsels us to not write about individuals if they have not already been brought to the public's attention by mainstream sources. Limiting the article to "names that mainstream sources have noted are unusual" makes us fully compliant with BLP.
  I've started in on that work, and I thank JBSupreme for doing much of it as well. I just wish he didn't feel it was necessary to both clean up the list and try to delete it at the same time; maybe he's trying to use AfD to try to force these improvements under duress. I think that's a misuse of AfD; it should have instead been taken to the NPOV and/or BLP noticeboards. But so be it.--Father Goose (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see where you are coming from - definitely having it listed 5 times could be seen as pushing it... however, in this case the topic itself is inherently vague and we are basically saying that we agree with those who believe the names are unusual. What about a situation where the person doesn't see their own name as unusual? The title is in essence taking a side here - it is saying that the person's name is unusual, which is a point of view. This fundamentally violates the NPOV policy. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a list of "names that reliable sources have noted as being unusual". There's nothing even remotely vague in that criterion, and it is explicitly stated at the top of the article. It would be ponderous, even inappropriate, to include such specificity in the title just because people at this AfD aren't paying attention to the list criterion. (We don't have List of tallest completed, continuously occupiable buildings over 240 meters high in the world for that reason.) And it wouldn't dissuade idiots who like to add their own "favorite crazy names" anyway. We don't delete articles just because some people perpetually disregard Wikipedia's conventions.
      What is non-neutral is practically every "deletion" !vote on this page: "subjective unencyclopedic crap-magnet non-neutral BLP NOT incomplete undefinable trivia cruft". It's just one snap judgment after another. They're not even bothering to offer a rationale, let alone one based in policy (and merely saying "This violates policy XXX" without explaining how is not based in policy). I also see a lot of arguments that say, "It's not enough if a reliable source says that a name is unusual; I don't think it's unusual, therefore the list is crap." That is an argument based upon "truth, not verifiability", which is an utter contradiction of our core principles.--Father Goose (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this subjective trivia. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as subjective and unencyclopaedic. A crap-magnet, too ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective and incomplete. (How could it leave out Shanda Lear? Doesn't anyone think that "Jimbo" is an unusual name?)   Will Beback  talk  01:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - without subsections, the list is nebulous and indefinable, but the article has subsections which are each themselves definable, these can be certainly referenced and sourced. Just about every bookshop in the mother/baby section has list of names type books. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As I pointed out earlier, there are academic and popular books dealing with this. H. L. Mencken's classic American Language has a section on precisely this. The personal view that this is subjective is simply wrong, since sources exist. This has been pointed out repeatedly by numerous editors, but it does not stop the IDIDN'THEARTHAT. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Regardless of the last AfD outcome, inclusion is still based on opinion and an unclear criteria. Nothing but a list of trivial opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (4th nomination), which closed as "keep". Five nominations of content that a respectable segment of the community finds worthwhile is excessive. This non-trivial content verifiable by multiple reliable sources, including scores of published books is undeniably Wikipedic and exactly the kind of fun and interesting content that makes Wikipedia appealing to such a diverse readership (it gets nearly 20,000 page views a month!). Although I am the tenth editor to argue to keep, I tagged the article for rescue at 00:43, 30 December 2009, although given the sourcing the article already has, deletion seems based really on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and so I am not sure myself what more can be done to counter that (hence why I am hoping that any reasonable and open-minded editors can indicate as much so we rescuers can act accordingly). Anyway, the article has a clear inclusion criteria: only names; only personal names; only unusual personal names; and per our policies and guidelines, only unusual personal names described as such in reliable sources. It also serves a valuable navigational purposes as a gateway to other articles. All of that is objective bases for inclusion. Moreover, WP:ITSCRUFT is never a compelling reason for deletion. In any event, so long as everything on it is backed by reliable sources and nothing is libelous, I see no pressing need to protect the public from this content nor to deny our thousands of readers and many editors who see this content as worthwhile from continuing to make use of it. While this discussion is most likely and most fairly a "no consensus" closure, I do think based on strength and honesty of arguments as DGG suggests above, it should be another "keep." What needs to be clear, though, is whether or not this is a case of no matter how much we improve this article do some simply not want Wikipedia to have lists? Or is there something specific we can also do and which you can help us to do? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The list is well sourced and there are numerous substantial works upon this topic such as The Guinness book of names, Personal names and naming: an annotated bibliography, A history of British surnames‎, American given names: their origin and history in the context of the English language, and so on. As naming is the subject of such study and scholarship, we are able to rely upon this to establish whether a name is unusual or not and so we're good. The nomination seems vexatious per WP:NOTAGAIN as it offers no new argument that has not been considered and rejected before. Raising this matter at this special time of the year with no trace of a new argument seems to be disruption contrary to WP:DEL, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Colonel Warden (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, "Colonel Warden", for assuming good faith. It would appear that you have overlooked the fact that this article has been deleted in previous AfD discussions, such as the 3rd nomination. If you would please refer to my repeated concerns addressed above, you would realize that I have made new arguments regarding this subjective list, with a particular concern about how we are treating living subjects (WP:BLP), specifically young children who are being referred to as "unusual" by this list. I most certainly do hope for a different outcome. Cheers, JBsupreme (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• BLP did not form part of your nomination and is not applicable because this is not a biography. Again, please see Think of the children. It is our policy that censorious emotion may not be used to suppress content. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If BLP is interpreted to mean "information about living subjects that may be thought of as negative is to be deleted", then NPOV is in tatters. The principles and practices laid out by BLP are important and necessary. But they are also finite in both scope and intent: blacking out information that has already been made fully public by the mainstream media is not the purpose of BLP, regardless of what the information is, or who it is about. I know a lot of people wish that was the purpose of BLP, but it isn't.--Father Goose (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The funniest thing is when they cite BLP, forgetting completely WP:WELLKNOWN, which is an integral part of WP:BLP. --Cyclopia^talk 12:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• commentTheir names may be well known, but whther their names are unusual is nothing more than someones subjective judgement. We might as well make a list of weird looking people and cite WELLKNOWN arguing that "we all know what they look like". The problem here is that being mentioned once as "having an unusual name" in the media does not mean that you have an unusual name - it only means that one reporter thought so.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WELLKNOWN is not a free pass for ignoring NOR, so that's a strawman argument. Being mentioned in the media as "having an unusual name" means that you have been mentioned in the media as "having an unusual name". That is the subject of the article, if one bothers to read it, which apparently not a single "delete" !vote here has.--Father Goose (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Why is this up for deletion a fifth time? Why weren't the previous four "keep"s good enough? What's really new and different that justifies a fifth nomination? (As distinct from a "grasping at straws" rear-guard action.) It sounds a lot like "WP:I just don't like it" to me. I see the Colonel Warden / JBsupreme interchange above. I'm unconvinced about the "delete" argument. Unless someone can come up with a compelling "delete" argument, I will lodge a "keep" entry. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: it has been deleted once before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maunus (talk • contribs) 12:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The third AFD resulted in a Delete verdict, and the article was deleted in January 2009. A DRV in April 2009 endorsed the closure, but found that community consensus on such lists had changed enough to permit them to be relisted. Thus, AFD 4 which was closed as Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot see how this can be rescued. A name may be "unusual" in one cultural context and very common in another. And keeping the list even remotely up to date would be impossible. NBeale (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can see there being BLP issues here. Also who judges "unusual" from usual? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and clean-up - Fifth Nomination? Four others were to keep? Argument smacks of "WP:I just don't like it" as previous posters have said. Although the article really needs to be cleaned-up, I think. Roodog2k (talk)

  Y'know, if you're going to use the "Fifth Nomination?" argument, it might do you well to actually read the four prior discussions; one ended in delete, two in keep, and one as no consensus. Shereth 17:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The one that ended in "delete" was pseudo-overturned at DRV, which is why we're back here again. At best this article has been in perpetual "no consensus" territory, though given the almost exclusively subjective nature of the "delete" arguments, this is the kind of "debate" that puts the lie to "not a vote".--Father Goose (talk) 19:50, 30 December 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.