Deletion of List of unusual personal names (4th nomination)

Comment: Up to this point, the main arguments for deletion are that this is |original research and that it violates a |neutral point of view.  For the OR claim, I would kindly ask someone to explain ''how'' this is original research. I do not see any ''"unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position"'' in this list of names.  If any of the names can't be sourced, they should be removed. The topic of "unusual names" is by no means original research, as a quick http://books.google.com/books?tab=sp&sa=N&hl=en&lr=&q=%22unusual+name%22 Gbooks, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22unusual+name%22&btnG=Search Gscholar, http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&q=%22unusual%20name%22&sa=N&tab=pn Gnews search for "unusual name" would seem to indicate.  For the NPOV claim, I agree that adjectives like "unusual" can be inherently subjective, thus lending themselves to a non-neutral point of view.   This is easily fixed by either renaming the article to something more specific, or simply defining what "unusual" means for the purposes of the list.  Since other cultures and languages have very different criteria for "unusual" names, we also need to limit this to English-speaking cultures. (For example "Jesus" (''Jesús'') is actually a very common name in Spanish-speaking cultures.)  So, first I would move the article to List of personal names considered unusual in English-speaking cultures (hopefully someone can think up a more concise title), and then in the lead sentence define the constraints of the list. Something like: ''"This is a list of personal names normally considered unusual in English speaking cultures. For the purposes of this list, an unusual name is defined as a name based on or the same as an organization, company, website, fictional character, product, place, or country, or names which are common words not normally used as first names in English, names that intentionally contain a meaningful phrase, names adopted or given as a form of political protest or for publicity reasons, names which read as a double entendre, names which have received media attention for their length (long or short), names based on numbers or symbols, and palindrome|palindromic names"''.  Giving the article clear constraints like that and requiring all entries to be sourced should take care of all the problems as I see it. —&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: I would argue that the discussion has concatenated two discrete questions, the first question being "Should this article itself be in Wikipedia?" (the point of contention in this AfD), and a second question, "Will the article's content be completely unmanageable?". I wholeheartedly agree that the '''content''' of the article will always have ongoing , ,  and more problems.  As
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NPOV||WP:NOTE)

Comment: violates  and  as what is "unusual" in one country or even region is usual or the norm in another. The "centralized discussion" is unpersuasive that consensus has supposedly changed for these subjective "unusual" lists, as many of the comments there boil down to "generally I think these are not a great idea but there's one I do like
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: referenced, and therefore, in this case, |verifiable. It's not OR, and NPOV is followed, since "unusual" in this case is according to the sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: A person with an unusual personal name is not ote|notable per |GNG.  A person who has received however much media attention solely for having an unusual personal name is "ONEEVENT" |still not notable.  See: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&as_qdr=all&num=100&q=Talullah+Does+The+Hula+In+Hawaii&btnG=Search&meta= that wee lass in New Zealand; Napoleon Einstein
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:GNG||WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: The list is thoroughly backed by several dozen reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim of notability. This is the English Wikipedia, and the definition of unusual is based on the speakers of this language as documented by reliable and verifiable sources, all of which conclusively rebuts claims of  or 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:OR)