Deletion of List of unusual personal names (5th nomination)

Comment: We do not publish the real name of the infamous Star Wars Kid, citing '''''' and "|do no harm".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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:DONOHARM)

Comment: 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  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  is a non-argument as an essay that does not reflect consensus. Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: 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  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 , "''It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTAGAIN||WP:BLOCK||WP:DEL)

Comment: 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 ) 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: 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 http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22unusual%20personal%20names%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp 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 http://stats.grok.se/en/200911/List%20of%20unusual%20personal%20names 20,000 page views a month!).  Although I am the tenth editor to argue to keep, I tagged the article for rescue at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_unusual_personal_names&diff=334821220&oldid=334814344 00:43, 30 December 2009, although given the sourcing the article already has, deletion seems based really on  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,  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:ITSCRUFT)

Comment: 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 , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)