Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 of the debate was no consensus reached Sceptre (Talk) 10:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual personal names

What constitutes an "unusual" name? In whose opinion? This list is unverifiable and POV. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • One has only to read two sentences into Talk:List of unusual personal names ("Apple isn't that unusual. Lots of Chinese are named Apple.") to see what the problem here is. What constitutes "unusual" to one culture is often run-of-the-mill to another, and thus for Wikipedia to describe some of these names as "unusual" is for Wikipedia to adopt one particular culture's point of view. There's been some refactoring discussed on the talk page, but the basic question "What is the point of this page?" has not been answered (in a way that adheres to the NPOV) yet. Perhaps refactoring this as a list of personal names that are unique to one person and intentionally chosen to be unusual in the view of the person choosing the name (e.g. people formally changing their name to make a point) might save the article. Of course, that's an exceedingly unwieldy title. ☺ Uncle G 08:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Likewise, "Tuesday" and "Thursday" are commonplace names in Ghana where a longstanding custom names children after the day of the week when they were born: Kwasi = Tuesday. [1], [2], [3] Durova 09:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Inherantly POV listcruft. Movementarian 08:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. WhiteNight T | @ | C 08:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's possible to come up with objective criteria for "unusualness". For example, a newspaper article on that person which focuses on the person's name. --Carnildo 09:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Carnildo. Use references for definition. -- JJay 09:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There really doesn't seem to be a way to define what is unusual. The list would be inherently POV and centric to one culture. What one culture views as unusual may be quite normal in another (see examples above). Movementarian 10:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of the names are well beyond the examples given above (see below). I think footnotes and explanations can adequately deal with any cultural problems. -- JJay 11:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How so? Movementarian raises a solid point, and I think your response is insufficient to attend to the problem he raises. How do you footnote the fact that Britney is normal in the US and unusual in Sri Lanka? And moreover, doesn't that simply transfer the onus of 'unusual' from one place (this article) to another? And what kind of references do you envision detailing culturaly unusual names denominated by culture, nuanced over time? And how does this stand as an encyclopedic project? Strong Delete obviously Eusebeus 13:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • See examples below. Any problems can be explained through footnotes. Last question not relevant.-- JJay 21:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "How does this stand as an encyclopedic project?" is a very relevant question. Uncle G 00:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not here, it's not, because the framing of the question and the respondee's answer are/would be hopelessly determined by POV. To remain focused on the questions at hand, potential references for this list might be found here [4]. -- JJay 01:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Begging to differ: the likelihood is slim that this list would ever serve as a vehicle for serious research. Durova 07:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Everything can be a vehicle for serious research. That's why we have grants. -- JJay 08:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Article could be useful if it would include only the names no culture usually uses (like the Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 or when the name was clearly chosen to make a point of some kind. Historically ordinary names (Cotton Mather) that now sound amusing to us or non-english names that sound amusing to english-speakers would not apply. In that respect the list may only need pruning. Names that are homages to some historical person or fictitious character are also a different matter - Skysmith 11:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's asking the impossible. No editor can check a name against all cultures contemporary and historical. Durova 12:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inherently POV and culture-centric as outlined by Movementarian; a horrible example of listcruft which I seriously doubt could ever rise above cultural wrangling to become anything like a high quality, encyclopaedic article. Peeper 11:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Peeper --kingboyk 12:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong Talk 13:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let's not stretch the POV argument too far here - almost everything on Wikipedia could be argued as POV in some respect, but unusual names can at least be verified. In truth, the article is really "List of personal names that have been widely considered unusual", but that is a bit of a mouthful. Cleanup and verify, if you must, but do not delete. I think some of the examples on the page are pretty objectively unusual: "Depressed Cupboard Cheesecake", "Eagle-Eye Cherry", "Moon Unit Zappa", "Tee Vee", etc. If they are common in one culture, that's irrelevant to the criteria, as long as most people find it unusual. Turnstep 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Interesting but I must agree with the PoV assessment, despite sophistry argument just above. — RJH 16:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Almost all of our lists involve some editorial judgement requiring inclusion. Indeed, all Wikipedia articles, even if consisting entirely of verified, sourced material, involve judgement in how the information is integrated, synthesized, and presented. NPOV does not mean mechanical objectivity. This list is borderline. But I come down on the side of "keep" because it is amusing; because it is not as much of an idiosyncratic non-topic as List of songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics; because although the article is poorly sourced with respect to showing that the names are actually consider unusual, it is fairly well sourced with respect to showing the existence of the people bearing the names; and because I added an entry or two to this article myself. (Ooops, I didn't mean to mention that. Closing sysop, weight my opinion accordingly). Dpbsmith (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless list; will at best be based on debatable opinions Paul 19:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term "unusual" is not itself a call for opinions, it is defined as things out of the ordinary and not expected. It may be that the first name "apple" as translated in Chinese is not unusual in China; but it sure is unusual in the English speaking world. I would agree that there would be a POV issue if this were a list of "weird" or "stupid" names since that is a value judgment. Unusual is simply a numbers game. I think there's enough space for this. Jtmichcock 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term "unusual" in this context is inherently POV. Also, the list seems limited to famous people and celebrity off-spring, so it really should be called "Famous people who named their children names that we thought we odd." And that, of course, is very POV. So, again, delete. Crunch 00:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list is simply unmaintainable. A few people may be choosing such names to make a point but many on this list would be offended that their name is somehow considered "unusual". To consider Cotton Mather, for example, unusual is to demonstrate either ignorance or willful bias about the conventions of the time. I do not believe that it is possible to craft a functional definition for "unusual" in a cross-cultural encyclopedia. The very definition of "usual" is too culture-specific. Furthermore, even if we did craft such a definition, I see little value to this list in our goal of making an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Rossami (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jtmichcock. Merge somehow with Wikipedia:Unusual articles (may be complicated). The section on names in that list is a subset of this one since it only contains names which have articles. I would be OK if we only had a list of names which have articles. See also List of interesting or unusual place names which is much much longer than this list. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 05:16Z
  • Keep This falls clearly into the almanac type of entry that is just as readable as the encyclopedic entries. It is no more or less valuable than other entries such as List of films that have been considered the worst ever. If you know more information, that the name is popular in another country, add the information. The names can be verified and frequency can be measured by consulting the California Birth Index or the Social Security Death Index. There is a bias in the list, in that most entries are for celebrities with unusual names.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've mentioned the "List of films that have been considered the worst ever". Quoting from the introduction to that article, "The films listed have been either cited by a combination of reputable sources as either the worst movie of the year, or been on such a source's list of worst movies." How many names will be left on this list once we meet our basic encyclopedic requirements of WP:NPOV and WP:V? Lists are easy to add to and difficult to maintain. Will those voting "keep" here vow to shephard this article and ensure that only Wikipedia:Reliable sources are used? If we can just for a moment recall what we are meant to be doing here, per Eusebeus. Delete it and be damned. - brenneman(t)(c) 10:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No way of finding an objective standard that a name is "unusual". A "List of names which have been considered unusual" is not very helpful either. Considered by whom? What makes a name unusual? That it is funny? That few people have that name? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would not a newspaper article about the unusual name be objective? Turnstep 22:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as both hopelessly POV and crufty. Stifle 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, again. We did this already (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of unusual personal names). Always check Whatlinkshere before posting AFD. -- Netoholic @ 04:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Interesting to compare this nomination to the previous one. Apparently the term "listcruft" was not in vogue back then... Turnstep 12:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we can verify who thinks the names are strange. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful list.  Grue  14:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Upon reviewing WP:NPOV and the "How can I tell if my article has a POV?" criteria in particular, I find no clear POV here. NPOV does not not banish opinion, it simply requires a level playing field. There is no unfairness here. -- Mike 16:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for pointing that out. A related point: if I look at Talk:List of unusual personal names I see relatively little controversy. There's some discussion of categorization, etc. but what I do not see is much serious dispute about whether a particular name should or should not be included. For example, so far nobody has disputed the unusualness of "Audio Science Clayton." Dpbsmith (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Racist/POV DaGizza Chat (c) 21:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Racist is a absurd. Even though "unusual" is culturally-defined, we could simply list ones from cultures where it is weird to be named Apple or Thursday; that's simple. If a Chinese man was named "Adam Jefferson" that would be unusual and noteworthy. Justin (koavf) 00:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Impossible to create a NPOV article for this, sorry. Who defines "unusual"? Cactus.man ✍ 15:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are any number of options:
    1. Newspaper articles on people's names, as in the cases of Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 and Optimus Prime
    2. "Did you know" or "Believe it or Not"-style books
    3. I'm sure a sociologist somewhere has done a paper on unusual names
    --Carnildo 23:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Needs clean-up, including to define criteria and verify, but no reason to delete. Johntex\talk 17:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: agree with Johntex. Jonathunder 03:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentIs everyone... heck anyone who is saying "cleanup" going to actualy help top do so? I'd ask that you look at List of sexual slurs, Talk:List of sexual slurs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slurs, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slurs (2nd nomination) for some real life examples. It's easy to come and drop a blithe "keep and cleanup" on AfD, it's a long, grinding slog against a constant tide of listcruft to actually do so. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Should the article actually be kept, I'll clean it up. --Carnildo 07:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - great list. violet/riga (t) 08:19, 14 January 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_unusual_personal_names_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1082619810"