- List of unusual personal names (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
During the deletion debate, just about all the deletion rationales were in the form of "delete, violates NPOV" or "delete, subjective". The former is a WP:VAGUEWAVE, as no specific reasoning for how the article violated WP:NPOV was offered, and the latter actively disregards the WP:ASF section of NPOV, which states, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves... When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion."
The opening paragraph of the article is what makes the list compliant with this principle: "The following list... is of people who have received media attention because of their name." This simple criterion, and adherence to it, is what makes the list non-subjective. It contains opinions (drawn from reliable sources), and declares at the top that that is the intended entirety of its content. "Unusual names" is a subject that many professional writers have touched upon, often at length (which is what justifies our having an article on the subject, if anyone wants to raise the WP:N angle), so if Wikipedia is to have an article about the subject, the only neutral way to approach it is to simply collate what various writers have said about the subject. Colonel Warden pointed this out in the course of the debate: [1].
Perhaps it could have been made clearer that the list is "not subjective" as a result of following that rule -- through a rename or further tweaking of the opening paragraph -- but the article still shouldn't have been deleted on the basis of delete !voters failing to properly assess the policy-compliant nature of its content.
A number of editors attempted to communicate these problems to the closing admin, who has reaffirmed his closure without addressing any of our specific policy concerns. Post-closure, he cited "BLP issues", although that issue was similarly unjustified during the debate: BLP was invoked in the form of WP:VAGUEWAVEs, or under the rubric of "do no harm", which is distinctly not what WP:BLP states or embodies.
To the extent that there may have been valid BLP concerns, they could have been addressed by editing, not deleting the article. In fact, such work was actively underway at the time of the nomination: all unsourced entries (or those attributed to unreliable sources) were being re-cited or removed. Had "the protection of minors" been found to have valid basis in policy, that too could be addressed by simply removing them from the list.
I also note that there was irregularity during the AfD in the form of sockpuppetry, as described here. However, this element is far less important, in my view, than the broad absence of any rationale based in actual policy that would have justified the article's deletion.--Father Goose (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note as closer Please see my talk page User talk:Chillum#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (5th nomination) where I have responded to the issues raised by 4 people who have sought to keep this article. I am not sure how you can say I have not addressed your policy concerns Father Goose as I have explained the policy basis of both the delete and keep opinions and show that I have taken the instance sock puppetry into account. I feel there was a clear majority of people presenting a valid policy based reason for deletion. While both sides have valid policy based arguments it is not the job as my the closer to decide which opinion is correct, but simply to judge which policy based arguments represent a clear majority. The sock puppetry was a minor influence and only echoed the already prevalent opinion.
- This is one of those AfDs I expected to go to DRV regardless of how I closed it, however I believe my closing was the only sincere closing I could have done that takes into account both policy and the desire of the community. I feel to have closed it any other was would be disregarding consensus. The arguments Father Goose brings up in this DRV were all given consideration and were all responded to at the AfD by the other participants. These arguments failed to convince people of their merits at the AfD and I as the closer should not veto the fact that these arguments were not convincing to the community even if I happen to agree with them. I see no policy or procedural basis for reversing this closing. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Closer's rationale is well explained and well within policy. WP:DRV is not AFD round 2, and there seems to be no problems with the way the closer chose to interpret the general scope of the discussion. --Jayron32 18:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally decline from restoring this content due to the BLP issues raised at the AfD, however will e-mail the content to anyone who requests it. I don't object to another admin coming to a different conclusion than me though. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes please. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be willing to remove all unsourced entries and those regarding minors for the purpose of demonstrating that various BLP concerns are addressable through editing, not deleting the article. If, however, there is a consensus that repeating the mere fact that a professional writer considers a name to be unusual (of a well-known, or even dead person) is a violation of BLP, then indeed this article cannot hope to exist on Wikipedia.
I don't think one can claim that a consensus for such a broad position was formed during the course of the AfD. I would be content to have the article relisted at AfD to test the consensus for that specific point, as that seems to be the sole basis on which any actual policy-based objections are being raised.--Father Goose (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: Ignorance.
- How and where does one find "the Google-cached version"? What is "the DRV heading"? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's that little blue button at the top of this page that says cache. You manipulate your mouse with your hand until the cursor hovers over the little blue button that says cache. Once you're confident that the cursor is in the correct place, lightly apply pressure to the mouse button with one of your fingers.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aren't we the smart-arse! Don't you think you could have been ruder? It seems you weren't trying hard enough.
- And what's this crap about "curing ignorance (the chip on his shoulder i can't help))"? Get a grip sunshine! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if they know what it is, where it is, and how to retrieve it. I've been an internet user for 20 years, a WWW user for over 15 years, and a WP user for approaching 5 years, but I don't know where to access what you're talking about. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone who had actually been around that long would know what the word "cache" meant and how to easily figure out how it applied to what was being discussed here. You're only digging yourself deeper here. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't sufficient because it's uneditable. That makes it impossible to demonstrate that the BLP concerns, such as they are, are addressable through editing the article. The "subjectivity problem", however, cannot be addressed by editing the article, as it is a case of people simply not paying attention to this policy.--Father Goose (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The deal is, there is no need to restore this, because this is no longer a debate over whether or not the article itself is to be deleted. That's what AFD is for. This is a discussion over whether or not the admin that closed the AFD interpreted the discussion itself in a way that was reasonable and within the scope of his role as a closing admin. DRV is specifically not about the content of the articles in question. Its only about if the closing admin judged consensus. If the closing admin was basing his decision on the content of the article, and was ignoring the points made during the discussion, you may have a case to restore here. However, the admin clearly based his entire decision on the arguements made in the AFD. I don't see where the actual content of the article is relevent any more. --Jayron32 22:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A DRV is indeed about how the closing admin evaluated the arguments presented during an AfD. The evaluation should be take into account what actual specific policies are being violated, and should take into account whether such violations can be addressed through editing, not deletion. If those points are not adequately addressed during either the debate or the closure, then the appropriateness of the closure is thrown in doubt.
It's not enough to say "well, this group felt that way and that group felt this way, and more felt this way than that, so they win". There always has to be a sound rationale for deleting an article -- because otherwise, it's "just a vote". Headcounts aren't enough. Unspecific claims of policy violations aren't enough. And actual policy-based problems that can be addressed through editing also should not result in the deletion of an article.--Father Goose (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind you trying to refute my points, but at least refute my points, and don't invent points I did not state and then refute those. I never once said that I believed the admin did a mere vote count, nor did I once imply that if he had, that would have been OK. What I said was that it was clear that he based his decision on the strength of the arguement, and that DRV is not about whether or not the article should be deleted. That is what AFD is for. DRV is to decide if the closing admin acted appropriately. --Jayron32 00:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - essentially only one reason given, which was subjective, when it is clear that subsegments of the page are not so. Again, there are books on this sort of material in bookstores (has anyone had a baby and gone looking for baby names can attest). Reason two, i.e. "not encyclopedic" is not a reason. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There was disagreement as to if the content was subjective, but the significant majority of people felt it was subjective. It is not really the place of the closer that make their own decision on if it was subjective or not, but to follow what the consensus on the matter is. If I had decided myself that is was not subjective despite the consensus that it was then I would be replacing the community opinion with my own. Just as the closer should not impose their own opinion on the AfD, DRV should be about the closure and not a re-examination of the opinions presented(ie a second AfD). "Not encyclopedic" seems to me to be a very good reason for not including something in an encyclopedia. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 21:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - The subject is clearly notable, and the majority of the list is (or was getting) cited. Individual problems can be cleared up. Not having Nardwuar the Human Serviette and Screaming Lord Sutch and Ima Hogg in a list, would be an obvious encyclopedic omission. It highlights the diversity of imaginative parents, or individual choices. There is no necessity to equate 'unusual' with 'ridicule', that's a subjective evaluation. Otherwise, per Casliber. Reclose as "no consensus", with specific problems highlighted for addressing by editors. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted what's unusual is in the eye of the beholder and the closer got it right. I always thought it weird that there was a guy named Ham in the Old Testament when Jewish people aren't supposed to eat ham - does that make his name unusual? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as an accurate reading of consensus at the debate. The nominator of this DRV is excessively dismissive of the arguments to delete by chalking them up to little more than WP:VAGUEWAVE; when a clear-cut argument is made that the inclusion criteria for a list is simply too subjective the judgement thereof may be subjective itself, but that does not invalidate the fact that a strong majority of participants agreed with that judgement. In the spirit of full disclosure, I argued for the deletion of this article in the AfD. Shereth 21:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this is stated in complete ignorance of what the inclusion criterion of the list was: not "whatever Wikipedians think is unusual", but "whatever professional writers have commented on as being unusual". That not-so-small difference is the difference between original research and encyclopedia writing, and is what makes the inclusion criteria not subjective at all. The individual statements by the aforementioned professional writers are subjective, certainly, but an article that catalogs such opinions is not: reread WP:ASF to understand how an article of this type can be entirely factual and populated according to objective criteria. So you are again making vague assertions that policy is somehow being violated. Please offer me an argument that is actually drawn from any policy we have anywhere on the site. Point my attention to any part of policy that is actually in line your assertions. Please. Any part of policy. Be concrete. Otherwise you're continuing to make an open-ended assertion that cannot be refuted: "too subjective". It's that kind of behavior that makes AfD devolve from a supposed discussion of deletion rationales into an entirely, yes, subjective vote.--Father Goose (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, I am quite aware of what the inclusion criteria on this list was, your assertion notwithstanding. I also enjoy how you insist that it was based upon "professional" writers. Here's the thing of it: even if we conveniently ignore the fact that the bulk of the entries were "sourced" by autobiographies, blogs, personal websites and opinion writers, you still run in to the issue that the criteria is, in essense, "Names that someone considers unusual". Who that someone is, is ultimately subjective. I'm not going to rehash the debate with you, but will stand by my original statement: the closer made an accurate reading of consensus. Shereth 22:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was in the process of removing entries sourced from blogs, personal websites, and gossip websites. The "professional writers" I speak of were those writing for the BBC, CBS, Time, Guinness Book of World Records, the Guardian, the Independent, and so on. The opinions of such authors are very much valid material for Wikipedia. The other sources are not. I don't defend the use of non-reliable sources, and would continue to remove entries based on them, had the article not disappeared in a flurry of snap judgments.--Father Goose (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse correct closure both by headcount and argument strength, indeed no possible way this could have been closed as anything else. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By headcount, one would have to close as "no consensus". I invite you, or anyone else, to actually explain what parts of policy the article actually violates. No vaguewaves. No subjective pronouncements on "argument strength". Point to any actual words in any actual policy to underscore the claim that the arguments were policy based.--Father Goose (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- It's true, you are the only person so far to actually be specific about what portions of policy you felt were involved. But you only did so for the BLP issue, not the "subjectivity" one, and I'm not convinced that there was consensus during the deletion debate over how much the BLP issues came into play, or whether they could be addressed by trimming or otherwise editing the list.--Father Goose (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'll readily grant that the article, falling at least in part under the auspices of BLP, has to be sourced impeccably: every entry about a living person has to be cited to a reliable source. I'm prepared to ensure that it complies with that. As for whether we should even be allowed to mention that the BBC or some similarly reputable media source has commented on the "unusualness" of someone's name, I have serious doubts about whether that should automatically be considered "harmful", or that such information can be considered private, having been disseminated by said media source. A very great number of the entries are famous for more than just their names, or are deceased, or are individuals who deliberately chose attention-getting names. I would be willing to discuss whether any individuals under the age of 18 should be reflexively omitted from the list.--Father Goose (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse close, allow Father Goose to recreate And now the TL;DR part. I've gone back and forth on this. I think the closer's rational is well stated, though I do think that at some point sending things to AfD over and over again is a good reason to oppose deletion. While consensus can change, we also shouldn't be nominating things for deletion until they gets deleted. I think that second notion is important enough those !votes shouldn't have been entirely discounted (though I agree they aren't strong). In addition, as it is possible to source the fact that reliable sources find a given name to be "unusual," I think the"subjective" arguments should be significantly discounted as being factually incorrect. The BLP arguments are strong enough I think we should prune all unsourced information. I trust Father Goose to do so. So while I'd have closed this as "no consensus", and believe it should have been closed that way, the closer's view of things isn't unreasonable and is within discretion. All that said, (and realizing this isn't AFD2) my reading of the debate doesn't turn up a single valid reason not to let Father Goose recreate this. Hobit (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn sufficient arguments were given for why there are sources and what the sources were. those who continued to vote for deletion were engaging in IDINDTHEARTHAT, which is a polite way of saying that they had made up their minds from the start, either on the basis of inspection of the article, or merely the inspection of the title, and did not pay any regard to arguments. A close based on uninformed bare opinion is an incorrect close. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse: the arguments for deletion are much more persuasive, for example, Maunus'. Speaking about the article itself, we'll either have an V, NPOV, or NOR problem. The verifiability problem is that just calling a name unusual doesn't make it. We have an NPOV problem if we make this list useful by giving one definition of "unusual" above all others. And we have a NOR problem if we define for ourselves a name to be unusual by using the criteria given with an NPOV-problmeatic definition. Sceptre (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure The nominator here is overly dismissive of valid arguments; WP:VAGUEWAVE is being cited incorrectly here. The argument that a list's criteria for inclusion are inherently subjective is not a vague one, as Shereth wrote above. The subjectivity argument comes straight from WP:SAL, which states: "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should be based on reliable sources." Reliable sources, of course, must not be one writer's opinion that a name is unusual; there must be proof that a name is broadly considered unusual, or WP:NPOV is violated. In addition, there was the WP:BLP issue raised in the debate. All things considered, this was a sound close and I see no reason to overturn it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and award barnstar to closer for a courageous and correct closure. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shudder - Wiki-bullies give me the runs. Why does it have to be that "he who shouts loudest for longest" is the "winner"? Why does there have to be "a winner"? Why is it that a single editor trying to present a reasoned POV supported by a logical arguement gets shouted down by a pack of wolves, rather than people reading and considering the points he has raised, and addressing them? There's supposed to be a policy of WP:AGF. People are supposed to be polite and considerate. I'm unimpressed, and somewhat fed up. I would engage in this debate, but I just can't be bothered putting up with the crap. I hope you're all ashamed with yourselves. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? There was a debate and it reached a result, I don't see any "winners", or "bullies". Who is being shouted down, who is being a wolf? Who is assuming bad faith? Why on Earth should be be ashamed of ourselves? While your comment is rich in judgment it fails to explain itself in the slightest. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's what "gets you through the night", go for it.
- I think what I've said is pretty obvious. If you don't already understand it, then me explaining it to you is almost certainly not going to help, because you almost certainly don't want to consider that POV.
- Quite simply, I don't care. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough.
- However, as I've said, I think what I've said is pretty obvious. I'm rather surprised that it isn't obvious to someone of what appears to be your level of intellingence.
- Well, if it isn't obvious to you, never mind. The world won't end; after all, it's only wikipedia ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my personal opinion, "delete" was the most appropriate outcome, considering that such an article is never going to have objective inclusion criteria.
But. Closers are supposed to assess the debate, not the article. The process is not "everyone has a discussion and then some admin comes along and does whatever they personally think is right". The process is "everyone has a debate and then some admin comes along and decides what was the rough consensus". And from the debate before us, no matter which way you slice it, there was insufficient consensus to delete that article. In my opinion, that debate was one in which the weaker arguments gained the majority support. In that sense, I find the debate itself defective. I would prefer to relist this matter in the hope that we can have a further debate in which the strongest arguments carry the day. I expect someone will ask, if I feel like that, why don't I just endorse the close? And my answer is, because that's not FairProcess. It is not enough that we reach the correct conclusion in these things. Importantly, we must also show that we reach the correct conclusion in a fair and transparent way.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close as a correct interpretation of the discussion. There were good arguments on the "keep" side, but the "delete" side also had good arguments and were the clear majority even without discounting those who argued "keep" based on the repeated AFDing of the article. If Father Goose wants to create a userspace draft that addresses the BLP concerns, I think that would be fine, and if there is a version that achieves that then recreation should be permitted. --RL0919 (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as a valid closure within policy. JBsupreme (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as "I didn't like the outcome" is not a valid reason to initiate a DRV. There were no administrative missteps or wrongdoings that need correcting here. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow re-creation with stricter adherrence to WP:PSTS. Sufficient sources exist for such a topic. however, a name is unusual only if a reputable secondary source says so. I get no sense of actual WP:BLP issues serious enough to prevent undeletion of the history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. No actual policy based reason exists for deletion. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason. The most accurate reading of consensus would be "keep" based on strength and honesty of arguments, although I could understand a "no consensus" as a fair middle ground. But more improtantly, User:WossOccurring has just been blocked after a checkuser confirmed he is a sock of someone who has had multiple other accounts blocked this holiday season. Part of his disruption in addition to sockpuppetry include frivolous renominations of articles for deletion, dishonesty, etc. I am bringing it to your attention as he was the first account to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (5th nomination) after the nomination and looking through the discussion he is indeed unfortunately cited subsequetntly by such editors as User:Ks0stm with a "per WossOccurring". I am therefore deeply concerned that this account which is one of several we have been playing whack a mole with the past week or so belonging to the same person has unduly influenced that discussion given when he commented and that at least one editor does indeed cite him as part of the stance to delete. As the discussion was far from unanimous and close enough to a no consensus, I urge you to reconsider and reclose as "no consensus" per WP:DENY as we absolutely should not allow a discussion to have been influenced by a ban evading sock with a history of bad faith editing. If the account commented last and had no real influence on the discussion that would be one thing, but by commenting first after the nom and being cited by at least one editor, it clearly did influence the discussion and that is something we absolutely cannot allow to stand. By the way, other blocked socks of this user according to checkuser include User:VaginicaSeaman. Yes, seriously. This is absolutely not the kind of person we want influencing the outcomes of discussions. Really, we have been dealing with this guy's vote-stacking all month. See for example User_talk:Spartaz#Vote_stacking. Even before the sockpuppetry was initially discovered, he was discussed on ANI for both on and eve off wiki canvassing in AfDs he commented in. As soon as one account is blocked, more just keep popping up or we find some new webforum or talk pages on which one of his socks canvassed. And somehow he is getting around the auto-blocks. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of things. I am wondering if you read the link I put at the top of this DRV to my talk page. There I explain that I have indeed taken the sock puppetry into account. I also explain the policy basis of both the keep and delete arguments as I see them which I think refutes the idea that "No actual policy based reason exists for deletion". I really don't think the sock puppet had a significant effect and I do not think that the delete opinions were lacking a basis in policy. Both our criteria for lists and dealing with biographies of living people require a stricter standard of reliable sources which were really not of high quality, this is a policy based justification by my reading. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see any policy based reason for deletion that stood up to the refutations of those who argued to keep. I disagree that the sock account did not have adequate influence on the discussion so as to taint it. I whole-heartedly agree that any unusual names that are not backed by reliable sources or that are libelous should be aggresively removed, but that is not a basis to scrap the list in its entirety. I am not convinced per WP:PRESERVE that this article is so unsalvageable that we have to stop working on it right now on a site with no deadline. I am not persuaded that something with a clear inclusion criteria (only names, only unusual names, only names deemed unsual in reliable sources) is somehow indiscriminate or unmaintainable. Therefore, when looking closely at the nature of the comments, it seems more and more a case of some just not liking list articles, regardless of sourcing and so on. All of the reasons presented for deletion are refutable:
- "Subjective" (this word or some synonym is more or less repeated by a tremendous number of the delete votes) - not really subjective if called "unsual" in a reliable source
- "cruft" - a nonsense term not backed in policy
- "coverage is not notable" - what is and is not notable is subjective; objectively we can say the subject of unusual names is verifiable; my father got a page a day calendar for Christmas even that brings up unusual names of celebrity children, i.e. it is a verifiable subject of interest dealt with in list-esque manners
- a WP:PERNOM that cites the blocked sockpuppet account
- "BLP problems" - again, easily addressed by removing specific entries that seem libelous or are not backed by reliable sources
- one of the bolded deletes does suggest a merge per WP:PRESERVE, which incidentally is the ONLY blue-linked policy linked to by anyone with a bolded delete up to that point in the discussion!
- "trivia" - trivia is encyclopedic, at least according to numerous published books
- "incomplete" - do we not finish a house because only the foundations have been lain?
- "inclusion is based on opinion" - again, no, it is based on reliable sources that declare the names specifically "unusual"
- "keeping the list up to date would be impossible" - we have millions of editors and obviously ones interested in updating this article; are articles are constantly updated and changed
- "Who judges 'unusual' from usual?" - multiple reliable sources
- We have vague allusions to BLP, which can be addressed through normal editing, but the only actually blue linked policy I noticed in any of the delete comments was to WP:PRESERVE in a statement offering the possible of merging as an alternative. Now let's say the main potentially valid concern is about BLPs, then we could still rework the article to be about non-specific people. See for example the section "Interesting and Unsual Names" in a published book. Or we make it about the subject of "unusual names" and retitle/merge to Unusual names using such analysis as found here. The bottom line is that authors discuss the subject of "unusual names" and because they do so in multiple published texts, there is some manner of reworking the subject that can indeed be maybe less list based and more prose based. No one can honestly deny that the subject of "unusual personal names" is not addressed in reliable sources. No one can honestly deny that such editors as myself are willing to look for and discuss these sources. Put simply, please keep in mind that deletion is a last resort when NO possible solution exists, and I am convinced that other possibilities still indeed exist for encyclopedic coverage of this topic and certainly that we have editors interested in and willing to continue working toward these alternative solutions. Per Wikipedia:Editors matter, I would hope that we would allow these editors to in good faith exhaust all of these other possibilities WP:BEFORE calling it quits on something. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, said Deor, vaguely waving his hand. Deor (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I honestly don't think most people who said delete bothered to read the article at all. I've noticed at times there are some people who just go from one AFD to another, quite rapidly laying out their opinion, without bothering to actually read the article and give any real consideration towards it. The beginning of the article clearly gives specific criteria for what should be within it.
- "The following list of unusual personal names is of people who have received media attention because of their name, or are otherwise widely recognized as having names that are unusual. This list includes both names given at birth, and people who have legally changed their names."
And I see 102 references in the article. So the argument for deletion seems rather invalid. Therefore, it should be overturned. Dream Focus 06:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I had just read an article on unusual names and when I went to look in Wikipedia was surprised the article wasn't there. see here and here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 20:31, January 8, 2010
- Endorse the correct evaluation of consensus. Most if not all of the delete opinions referenced the article's subjectivity and this point was never refuted. This is because no matter how many sources may back up the claims of the article, other sources may say just the opposite about whether a name is "unusual" or not. Even when properly cited, the article would be nothing more than a glaring example of systemic bias. When the criteria is expanded to consist of any name that has ever been deemed unusual, the list becomes endless and indiscriminate. ThemFromSpace 06:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:ASF, then comment here in a way that demonstrates that you understand the difference between "factual statements of what a source's opinions are" and subjective material. If two sources contradict each other on what is "unusual", we can note the contradiction, or just remove the entry. But I have yet to come across a single rebuttal of the type you anticipate in any reliable source. Your other points do not address any point raised in the original AFD; I would refute them with little trouble if this were -- as so many are accusing me of thinking -- "AFD 2".--Father Goose (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The closer made it clear in his statement that there were two schools of thought which were both supported by policy - one that the matter was inherently NPOV and the other that it was verifiable by reference to reliable sources and so any NPOV issues might be resolved. The closer then chose between these two arguments. This is not acceptable because this is not consensus - it is an explicit failure to find compromise and so just overrule one side. This is not consistent with WP:DGFA which makes it clear that in cases of doubt - which must surely include such splits - then articles should not be deleted. Retention of the articles pending further refinement and improvement is thus the appropriate way to follow our deletion and editing policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation/userfying/incubation, possibly with a title more precise like List of personal names considered unusual. I personally think that the AfD should have closed as no consensus; however inherent subjectivity concerns are to be addressed. The article was however shown to be robustly sourced at least for some of the entries. I'd suggest to userfy/incubate, carefully check it is in good shape and robustly sourced, and then have it back. --Cyclopiatalk 23:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure - I have read through the debate, and I would agree that there was a general consensus for deletion. I'd also like to point out that the main purpose of DR is not for holding a second AfD and reasserting your keep opinion(s) - the deletion debate has already happened; instead, it is for asserting that the closing administrator misread the existing consensus. I do not think this is the case. Ale_Jrbtalk 23:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I don't see anything obviously wrong about this close. It seems to be a reasonable reading of the discussion that took place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
