Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (5th nomination)
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
— User:A, 04:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:RS||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:ITSCRUFT (Wikipedia:Verifiability)