Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JulesH (talk | contribs) at 20:15, 17 April 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

17 April 2009

List of unusual personal names and Place names considered unusual

List of unusual personal names (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Place names considered unusual (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm requesting this review following the outcome of the centralised discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things, the consensus of which was that "lists of unusual things" aren't automatically ineligible for inclusion just by being lists of unusual things. I feel that editors involved in that centralised discussion would like the opportunity to apply the general principles discussed to these two specific pages, which have previously been deleted. Copies of the deleted pages can be found here and here. SP-KP (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. The central problem with these was that it is arbitrary, POV, and OR to determine that something is "unusual". Lists like this can reasonably be maintained in project space, but that is all. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Undelete pending a new AfD My positions from January etc. regarding such lists in general are fairly clear and remain. The reasons for deletion were, IMHO, deficient at the time and I see no reason not let to others discuss the salient reasons anew. Let the ages get discussed. Collect (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn So long as such lists rely upon other sources that note that something is "unusual", it is not the author's POV. Authors like H.L. Mencken or Mario Pei or Christopher Andersen have written about the subject. Ideally, a person consulting the article would be directed to those other sources. Mandsford (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn List of unusual personal names: restore it. It is frivolous and unsuitable for a serious encyclopedia, arbitrary, POV and OR. All those things. But the sheer size, the number of contributors and the number of page views (22,285 in December 2008) show that people love it. It does no harm (well, the odd entry may have to be removed if offensive) and may do a lot of good in drawing people into Misplaced Pages. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Place names considered unusual: same argument as above, but it did not get many hits. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn. While it may in some circumstances be OR or POV that a name is considered "unusual", in others it is quite clearly true and verifiable. IIRC, these articles were well sourced and attributed the discussion of the names in question to appropriate sources, which does not seem to violate any policy. Yes, the sources themselves were expressing their own research and/or point of view, but that's what we're _supposed_ to do: summarise other people's research and viewpoints. Plus, as I said in the original deletion argument for at least one of these article, most of the perceived problems with the articles could be solved by a rename, e.g. to List of names considered amusing, which is what the article's title is trying to suggest in a less direct fashion anyway. JulesH (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

List of unusual personal names and Place names considered unusual

List of unusual personal names (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Place names considered unusual (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm requesting this review following the outcome of the centralised discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things, the consensus of which was that "lists of unusual things" aren't automatically ineligible for inclusion just by being lists of unusual things. I feel that editors involved in that centralised discussion would like the opportunity to apply the general principles discussed to these two specific pages, which have previously been deleted. Copies of the deleted pages can be found here and here. SP-KP (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. The central problem with these was that it is arbitrary, POV, and OR to determine that something is "unusual". Lists like this can reasonably be maintained in project space, but that is all. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Undelete pending a new AfD My positions from January etc. regarding such lists in general are fairly clear and remain. The reasons for deletion were, IMHO, deficient at the time and I see no reason not let to others discuss the salient reasons anew. Let the ages get discussed. Collect (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn So long as such lists rely upon other sources that note that something is "unusual", it is not the author's POV. Authors like H.L. Mencken or Mario Pei or Christopher Andersen have written about the subject. Ideally, a person consulting the article would be directed to those other sources. Mandsford (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn List of unusual personal names: restore it. It is frivolous and unsuitable for a serious encyclopedia, arbitrary, POV and OR. All those things. But the sheer size, the number of contributors and the number of page views (22,285 in December 2008) show that people love it. It does no harm (well, the odd entry may have to be removed if offensive) and may do a lot of good in drawing people into Misplaced Pages. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Place names considered unusual: same argument as above, but it did not get many hits. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn, allow a month or two for improvement and expansion of the place names article, and reconsideration of the items and rationales and sourcing of individual items in the personal name article, and then if anyone wants to nominate for afd we will see what the current consensus is. (not that I think the closers of the last AfDs necessarily read that right, even then)DGG (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - good close per our injunction against arbitrary and OR content. Eusebeus (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. I'm not at all sure the consensus of that centralised discussion really supports the recreation of these articles, and I certainly can't see anything wrong with the closes.—S Marshall /_Cont 17:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse what's unusual is dependent on what's usual and in the eye of the beholder (SUBJ & OR & POV). Many of these are unusual in a childhood giggly sort of way like the pictured intersection of "Cumming Street and Seaman Avenue" or mistranslations or pronunciations from foreign language names. Of course, there is no explanation of why each entry is there nor any sources of what constitutes unusualness that are universals - the Book of Lists probably has something of the sort but alas, it's in the opinions of its editors/authors. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)