Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of controversial celebrity baby names

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 was delete. In addition to the roughly 2–1 split in favor of deletion here, the concerns expressed with respect to BLP, indiscriminateness, and subjectivity do not appear to have been persuasively addressed by the advocates of keeping (even in the light of the move to a different article name). Deor (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial celebrity baby names

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

'Controversial', 'strange', 'weird', etc. are all subjective, if not biased qualifications and cannot be allowed on an encyclopedia(WP:NPOV). According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a directory or a fansite- hence listing all baby names from A to Z is beyond our scope. In addition, this list is currently a mess with the creator having abandoned it and other editors taking it over without a clue about the article's scope. There is no agreement on what the article will cover that has not been attempted in other deleted propsals. Jayakumar RG (talk) 06:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This just looks like a random list of celebrities who gave their children unusual names. In addition, not only are the names not controversial, but none of the sources even label any of the names as controversial. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Should I say "self-explanatory" too? No, I will actually explain my position by reference to policy: "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion". And not only does the nomination not bother to explain itself, it seems quite clear that no consideration has been given to WP:BEFORE. The naming of babies is quite a big deal in the real world and so the topic clearly passes WP:LISTN as there are numerous examples of relevant coverage including:

I have rarely seen such copious support for a list and the sources seem to agree on the selections:- Moon Unit, Fifi Trixibelle, &c. The only point at issue seems to be the word controversial. This seems a reasonable choice but, if we don't care for it, we can replace it with some alternative, such as exotic or notorious, without having to delete the page; we would just move it to the new title. Andrew (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the policy fully? The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted. The boldface is given for a reason. Hence speedy keep does not apply. But it was my mistake for not clearly pointing out that this article is Tabloid journalism, and not fit for Wikipedia. Jayakumar RG (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I read it - I read all policies that I cite quite carefully. The fact that another editor has posted a contrary !vote is no obstacle to mine because the idea is that we provide our separate inputs. The outcome depends upon what the closer makes of the overall consensus. It may be that editors change their !vote after seeing the arguments and evidence. It may be that !votes are discounted for some reason. Our positions are not fixed and so my proposal that the matter should be dismissed peremptorily stands. As for the link to tabloid journalism; you provide no evidence or policy to support this as a valid reason to delete. The first source I provided in the list above is to The Independent which is a high-quality newspaper, not the yellow press. And the other sources are all books. And here's another source: Encyclopedia of Motherhood, which provides a list of such names in its entry on Celebrity Motherhood: "Apple, Elijah Blue, Kal-El, Moon Unit...". This source is an encyclopedia and so the encyclopedic nature of the information is established. Andrew (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since someone other than me recommended(through their !vote) that the page be deleted, clearly speedy keep is void. The whole idea of a controversial baby name is biased, so Wikipedia saying in its own voice that these names are controversial is unacceptable. We can discuss somewhere about societal attitudes towards baby names and celebrities flouting them, but listing out self-judged 'controversial' names as a separate article is the height of triviality. Jayakumar RG (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the word controversial to demonstrate the ease with which ordinary editing can address such qualms. The selection of names is not self-judged as these examples all seem well-established in the extensive literature such as the sources listed above. I have started citing these to avoid any doubt on this point too. Again this is ordinary editing and it is our editing policy to improve new articles in this way, not to delete them. Andrew (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now we have changed the article to 'List of celebrity baby names'- what is the scope of this list? Every celebrity baby name from A to Z? Not only does that change the whole point of this article, even the new article fails under WP:NOT. Jayakumar RG (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page is a new one created by a new editor and so is still shaking down. It might help if we had the editor here, participating in the discussion, but perhaps he has now been scared off by this unfriendly proposal. Myself, I have studied numerous sources now and so have a good feel for the topic. There is extensive coverage of celebrity baby names because new parents are especially influenced by them when naming their children. That's why Liam, for example, is now one of the top choices - because of the influence of celebrity Liams like Gallagher and Neeson. In the copious baby name literature, you find three sorts of celebrity name lists. One is what the celebrities are called themselves. Another is what the celebrities are calling their children in general. And the third are lists of celebrity baby names which are considered to be especially bizarre or weird. The idea here seems to be to compile a list of the oddball names and this seems quite easy to do because the sources generally agree on what they are. Andrew (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we already have extensive coverage of baby names on pages like category:Given names and List of most popular given names and there are countless pages for particular aspects and details such as the Icelandic Naming Committee and Germanic personal names in Galicia. The page we have here seems comparatively straightforward. Andrew (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the author only meant controversial names, while you have changed the nature of the article itself (without hearing his opinion on it, I might add). If we really cover all celebrity baby names from all over the world, the list should run into the thousands. Can you prove that this is not in violation of WP:NOT? We may have to include ancient celebrities if we want to avoid WP:Recentism. While most celebrities are WP:Notable for Wikipedia, their babies are not per se, leave alone their names. Jayakumar RG (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your proposal and so you're the one with a case to make. Per WP:VAGUEWAVE, if you think WP:NOT applies then you need to explain how and why. What I'm seeing there is WP:NOTPAPER, "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content". Given this, the size of the list is not currently a problem nor is it likely to be. Andrew (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory. It is also not a fansite. If this article's purpose is to record fancy baby names, there are other wikis out there for it. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has no reason to make such a list. Jayakumar RG (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A speedy keep in this case is inappropriate for a lot of reasons. p b p 20:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly there is a serious WP:BLP problem here. Controversial babies, anyone? Secondly, it is the articles in the press which are notable, not the subject matter. So a list of articles that mention the names of the children might be notable, but an extrapolation of that information is WP:SYNTH, as per this article, and is not acceptable. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extrapolation? Synthesis? What is the synthetic proposition which the sources do not state? Andrew (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. If you don't understand me you should read (and understand) the guideline WP:SYNTH! Now the article has been been renamed I trust you are not going to omit any celebrity baby names, Andrew? Sean? Zak? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're ducking the question and so your objection is still just a vague wave: "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why." Andrew (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to duck the question, I am trying to avoid repeating myself. But as you insist on me supplying an analysis of the content of WP:SYNTH in the hope I will either go away, or better still, change my mind, here goes :-

The taking to two concepts and merging them into a thought, an article or a list (as in this case) is original thought. I have no doubt that there are lists of "celebrities who give their children extraordinary names" and I have chuckled at them myself, but to take the "concept" of a list and to create an article is a stage too far. Even the supporters of this article agree with me when they need to ask "Is "Ford" an unusual or controversial given name" If the question needs to be asked then there is a complete failure of a number of policies and guidelines including OR, Synth, opinion and probably others.

Of course you knew this before and the vague wave is yours. Cheers. I have no need to respond again. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Postcript comment. If my argument wasn't going to carry much weight at the closure of the AfD, why ask me to improve it if you are on the opposing side? (rhetorical question, no need to respond). --Richhoncho (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The general point to be aware of is that WP:SYN is a quite narrow and specific complaint, not some general catch-all which can be used againts any list that you don't happen to like. Please see Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not for more details. Andrew (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query - Is "Ford" an unusual or controversial given name? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me. I have the same question about "Apple", "Justice" and "Cruz". They may all be unusual but here, the trouble is 'controversial'. Jayakumar RG (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working down the list and hadn't got to Ford yet. There's some coverage out there for this baby's name, which is Robert Ford, in full. This discusses why the name was chosen and how popular it is but there's no indication that it is thought to be especially bizarre or weird. Apple, on the other hand, shows up in just about every list of strange celebrity baby names and that's why the entry now has six citations and counting. So, this is easily addressed by by ordinary editing - Apple stays in and Ford comes out. We have to do this kind of maintenance for every list of any size. It's not a reason to delete. Andrew (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If reliable sources cover and comment on the strange names, then its notable. The article should be titled "unusual" baby names, not controversial. Dream Focus 21:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adjectives like 'strange' violate WP:NPOV. Jayakumar RG (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not it doesn't. Look at the references. "The most unusual celebrity baby names", "Some of the oddest celebrity baby names", "Notorious Celebrity Baby Names", "The best of the unique", "Bold Baby Names", "whacky names". If reliable sources use these names, so can we. Dream Focus 02:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete a collection of povs and numerous personal opinions. A cited one, perhaps, but not a suitable article. All the issues of a list like worst films without the superlative that gives a discretional ability and the notability of an actual ranking system. The exact same arguments being used here could be used for lists of celebrities with bad plastic surgery or ugly tattoos -- just because something has articles about it does not mean it is suitable for an article .--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a noted and familiar phenomenon as evidenced by social commentary in reliable sources of which Wikipedia keeps track. Wikipedia editors have discretion on what to include or not based on the criteria, disagreement over individual entries can be worked out on the talk page. -- GreenC 05:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep -- the sources make it clear that notability is not in question. What's needed is a more developed intro that expands on the phenomenon itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced, discussed, can have reliable objective criteria, thus notable and good to stay.--cyclopia ^speak! 09:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of secondary sources, also - not "self-explanatory" at all. Zambelo; talk 10:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article on the phenomenon of certain celebrities choosing unusual names for their children would be supportable, but not this list. The people listed in this article are private individuals and should be granted a presumption of privacy; it is not the job of an encyclopedia to point and laugh at them for a characteristic they did not choose. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well put! Jayakumar RG (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible delete: Per WP:IINFO. Another one of these lists with "unusual" or "controversial" in the title that needs to die. What is "unusual" or "controversial" is subjective and open to disagreement. If a list has an adjective in its title, it should be something like "first", "longest", etc. p b p 14:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superlatives (biggest, longest) are also inherently subjective. How do you define the length of a bridge? The part over water, the part over land+water, etc.. there is disagreement about this. How one defines things determines how things are measured and very often there is disagreement and subjective opinion. We simply report what sources say, we don't determine on our own which bridge is longest. The same here, we report what sources say and don't worry that they are subjective, because they always are. If you seek absolute truth with no subjectivity in the sources then most of human culture (and much else besides) would be excluded from Wikipedia. -- GreenC 16:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IINFO specifically relates to fiction/lyrics/stats/software versions. It is not a catch-all for anything that one doesn't happen to like or disapproves of. Andrew (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cardamon, the subjectivity of this list is nothing like the subjectivity (of which there really isn't any) of bridges lists. If there are 3 or 4 different ways of measuring a bridge, you can just have different lists for each way to measure a bridge, or you can combine the 3 or 4 different ways to measure a bridge into a sortable wikitable. You can't do that with this list. p b p 20:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with 2/0 and other delete arguments. The list can do more harm than good, in my opinion, there are other sources more suitable than Wikipedia for readers interested in that kind of information. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This information is covered in numerous other sources, as the references show. The fact that the information is reported elsewhere is exactly what makes it notable and so that's a reason to keep it, not to delete it. Andrew (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you misunderstand me, having sources is a necessary but not sufficient argument on its own for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are many things that can be read in multiple sources and still should not be included in an encyclopedia. In my personal opinion this classifies as a clear example, specially since it could be potentially damaging to people involved. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is obvious the creator of the article, User:FordNixon, is trolling us. Now, please, don't tell me "AGF"; because its painfully obvious. He's dragged good and well-meaning editors into it as a result. I'm sure Ford is a consummate gentleman, you may peruse his diligent offerings since he joined us earlier this month. This is the kind of list certain to create drama, because you have the intersection of "reliable sources" pumping out puff pieces on this very topic vs. the fact that such lists are super silly. Should we really have stupid lists? No. Can it be hard to draw the line between stupid and worthy of keeping. Yes. Add drama and stir.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think ForNixon is a troll. Are you a troll? -- GreenC 17:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. The joke about "Ford" above tells you I'm not alone in my thinking.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What joke? The user in question is User:FordDixon not FordNixon. Their other contributions such as 2005 Rally Japan seem quite sedate. Compare this with dog daycare, List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure or Pizza cheese. Milowent used to be proud of such whimsical topics. What happened? Andrew (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proud of all those! Claudius Gele which he also created was very inspired, but I'm not sure how intentionally. There's a difference between those notable creations I have worked on and subjects and List of Ice Bucket Challenge participants. The subject has to be definable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I assume that we're all going to be more than happy about the fact that Barack Obama needs to be included on this list since apparently multiple reliable sources calling a name "funny" is enough to justify a list like this. And yes, his father counts as a notable figure. Or that foreign names like Krishna or Indio must be counted as weird because, hey, sources refer to them as strange, and we therefore absolutely must have an article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barack's name would obviously be silly. If some insisted we would have a discussion on the talk page, and we would work out by consensus if the name should be included or not. That's how Wikipedia works, everything is under editorial control, there is no automatic inclusion. -- GreenC 17:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was kidding about Obama, but totally serious about the racist issues this article is going to suffer from (and all articles that are nothing more than a synthesis of non notable opinions on non notable people will suffer from). When numerous sources call a bridge the longest in the world, or a building the tallest, or a celebrity a catholic, a discussion on inclusion would be actually based on sources. In this case, it would simply be nothing but "I don't like it's".--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Aren't most of these items violations of WP:BLPNAME, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and therefore need to be removed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a general rule, list articles on Wikipedia are lists of links to Wikipedia articles, and given WP:NOTINHERITED, those who are merely children of the famous generally do not get articles. Some of the supposedly unusual names here aren't unusual; more than one in a thousand baby girls in the US are being named Brooklyn putting it in the top 30 baby names, about one in four thousand boys are being named Romeo, relatively the same for Cruz; if someone deems them strange, that would be an opinion, and something that should not be in Wikipedia's voice. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are defining a disambiguation page, there is nor requirement for lists to have links,a dn ayway there are links to the parents. There are several lists of mayors of townships, ceos of companies, where no one is notable, but the topic is notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the fact that these childrens' parents have made naming decisions we don't like doesn't mean we can drag them through the mud. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Stupid. Unencyclopedic. A matter of taste--even if verified. We have better things to do. We also should not be listing celebrity's children's names: there is no reason to do so. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For multiple reasons. Yes, celebrities give their children odd names with some frequency, but I'm not sure it's Wikipedia's job to catalog them in alphabetical order. The biggest problem is the subjective nature of what constitutes an "odd," "unusual" or "controversial" name for a child. Opinions will differ. At another level, I believe there is a WP:NPOV violation for the inclusion of any name that is not characterized as "odd," "unusual" or "controversial" in the mainstream media, and compiling such a list borders on original research per WP:OR. Then there's Dr. Mies' non-policy reason given immediately above: "Stupid. Unencyclopedic. A matter of taste--even if verified." I agree with that, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it should be policy. (Incidentally, I just noticed that WP:HOTTIE was deleted...) Drmies (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for almost to many reasons to list them all; everyone else has done so above. Serious WP:BLP issues; unless public figures in their own right, these children have a right to privacy. List is indiscriminate; the world is filled with lists of things based on the authors own criteria; that these lists exists doesn't mean we need to repeat these lists here. Wikipedia does not benefit for this list; if people need to read lists like this, I see no reason to stop them from finding them elsewhere. --Jayron32 00:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as calling violating the general rule about not mentioning the names of children who can not "inherit notability" in the first place, and where we deprecate using such names in BLPs. Secondly, as requiring a valuation essentially in Wikipedia's voice that the names are "controversial." For example, why would "Apple" be controversial"? It may be unusual, but "controversial? Nope. Sorry -- the list criteria are arbitrary at best, thus the list fails. Collect (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page in question doesn't use the word "controversial" and so this indicates that the !voter hasn't read it. What we have now is a flurry of censorious comments which have arisen since the matter was canvassed on the BLP noticeboard. The fact that entire books are written about the topic is ignored and personal, kneejerk opinions are deployed without any reference to the evidence. Andrew (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title contained the word 'controversial', so you just went and removed that word from the title. But the contents of the page remained as such. If I had known that there was such a simple solution for the problem, I would have tried it too! Jayakumar RG (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)It did until you removed it on 20 Sep at 21:55. 15 hours after this AfD was started, and the redirect using "controversial" is still in full force and vigour. I take it that you feel Wikipedia's voice for saying "unusual, odd, notorious, unique, whacky, bold, or other such terminology" cured the problem? It doesn't - "notorious" and "whacky" are fully as "controversial" as one might wish. By the way, attacking other opinions as "kneejerk opinions" rarely makes the closer value your opinions more highly here. Collect (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The words such as unusual and odd are taken from independent external sources and so are not a Wikipedia invention. Other words, such as stupid and trolling, are used here by the nay-sayers expressing their personal opinions. This is the essential difference - what do the sources say? Andrew (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This is an indiscriminate list of unrelated information stitched together with no clear definition. Academically, there is no study of this information, and presenting it as a meaningful whole is weirdly misleading OR. It drains credibility from the project to host such a weed garden of embarrassingly weak sources. Delete, and salt. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The WP:AFD page clearly states:

While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. Collect (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not prohibited because it's not a problem. There used to be some technical issues but Uncle G and other veteran admins fixed them many years ago. Andrew (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]
We spent a lot of time and effort explaining to people that they couldn't do it, back in the years where it broke the notice, and a fair amount of effort getting rid of the technical problem that prevented it. I don't want to go back to the times when I had to explain over and over to people who just wanted to edit like they normally could, addressing points raised in discussion with action, that an AFD nomination imposes restrictions whose technicalities they have to understand. We managed to get the restrictions down to, in effect, don't do anything that would remove/hide the AFD notice or that would make cleaning up copyright licence problems at the close of discussion harder, and that was a good thing.
— Uncle G, 17 November 2010

Delete Even if this article somehow survives this AfD, the vast majority of items will need to be removed per WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very few babies are 'celebrities', and I can see no evidence that more than a small minority of those listed meet Wikipedia notability criteria (notability not being inherited). Of those that are notable, their notability has nothing to do with their name. An unencyclopeadic list of vacuous trivia selected by arbitrary criteria, mostly concerning individuals that WP:BLP policy (and notability policy in general) says we shouldn't be discussing at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "strange" or "unusual" is not the same thing as "controversial". According to whom? A random gossip "journalist" who decided to name her children Steven, Simon and Samuel instead? Some of them aren't even "uncommon" let alone "unusual" or "controversial" (which, as I say, is a significant step further). Banjo? Lennox? Rhiannon and Romeo? The new title, "List of celebrity baby names" just turns this into a list of children of notable people, few of whom are notable in their own right which just creates a WP:BLP issue. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly rename, as suggested above, per WP:ODD. At this moment, the list is self-limiting. Bearian (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sure there are names that are controversial. This is a BLP disaster though. LadyofShalott 14:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! And here's why. I thought that since there are lists on people from Newfoundland, people of Korean descent and people who disappeared mysteriously, I thought it was a good idea to make an article on people who have been given controversial names by celebrities. I still think it was a good idea. Some of the problems listed in the discussion have been fixed by other users (such as the citation of the sources), while I've added a link to Celebrity to solve the orphan problem. FordDixon (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you see, 'controversial' is no longer in the picture. Jayakumar RG (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but the original page still redirects to the current version. Maybe we could rename the page "List of notable celebrity baby names?" It still shows that the names that are controversial without using the word "controversial." FordDixon (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the article title doesn't alter the fact that it violates WP:BLP policy by listing non-notable individuals. And violates WP:NPOV policy by asserting as fact that these individuals have 'controversial' names based on opinions expressed in particular sources clearly cherry-picked for this specific opinion (or rather, for an opinion which our article decides fits self-invented criteria as 'controversial'). Incidentally, the title is also entirely inappropriate in that it describes adults as 'babies'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of these items on this list are violations of WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Even if this article somehow survives this AfD, most of it will need to be cut out leaving it just a stub. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable by every standard, only a BLP problem if we have biographical information in the list, and there is none. We do not give their age or date of birth or where they were born, all the things that private people need to keep private. Change to "List of unusual celebrity baby names". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual is still something that generally reflects an opinion, rather than an actual factual analysis (and "odd" would be even more so). It is not a claim we should be making in Wikipedia voice, any more than we should have a list of shitty movies or list of people with nice haircuts... only to even a greater degree, as this list is largely a ridiculing of specific children. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that we do actually have a page at List of films considered the worst. However, this is a page with a clearly stated requirement that multiple movie critics, whose opinions we consider notable in determining a film's reception, have called a specific film the "worst" of all time. There's actually very little subjective interpretation here, unlike this article, which would be more like an article just called "List of bad movies" or "List of weird movies".--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, just about everything in human affairs is subjective. A better precedent for unusual is the list of unusual deaths. External media have praised the page as one of Wikipedia's finest and so it has withstood numerous AFDs. This case seems quite similar in that we have numerous external sources which enable us to determine what is or isn't considered unusual. Andrew (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources deserve no space in this project at all. They are throwaway pablum, as could only be expected from such a juvenile "topic". SteveStrummer (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should only cover highbrow topics like Suzy Saxon and the Anglos, eh? de gustibus non est disputandum Andrew (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're not as good as The Anemic Boyfriends, but at least they are a definable entity.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and Andrew have argued, this has as much merit as other lists of unusual whatever. BLP issues can be avoided. And yes, rename it to "unusual", not "controversial". Edwardx (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- What makes a name "unusual" or "controversial" is a subjective opinion, making this list inherently fail the WP:NPOV and [WP:SYNTH|synthesis]] policies. Where sources are cited, these are generally pretty crappy; someone above me called "throwaway pabulum", which is a fitting description. No source treats the topic as a topic, as opposed to just listing some alleged examples. Finally, I think some weight has to be given to WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE arguments. Reyk _YO! 22:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list, not a narrative topic, and fully satisfies the guidance of WP:LISTN. But if we want some more detailed analysis, there are good sources which for that too. For example, A Matter of Taste develops a theory of fashion from the study of names and naturally includes the influence of celebrity naming in this. Papers such as Identifying the Presence and Cause of Fashion Cycles in the Choice of Given Names then build on this. Andrew (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? WP:LISTN says that the topic needs to be covered as a group in reliable sources, which is exactly my point. Whether it's a narrative article or not does not enter into it. Reyk _YO! 00:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The name that the reliable sources use can be "strange", "odd", "peculiar", or "bizarre", break out your thesaurus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited may possibly be 'reliable'. They are however specifically selected to promote a particular opinion - that the names of these largely non-notable individuals are "strange", "odd", "peculiar", or "bizarre". Cherry-picking sources to promote a particular opinion is a violation of WP:NPOV, and listing non-notable individuals because a cherry-picked sources consider their names as "strange", "odd", "peculiar", or "bizarre" is a violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Performing a Google search is cherry-picking? Then every search for every fact is cherry picking. While "unusual" and "best" and "worst" are subjective opinions, we can have a consensus of opinions. We have List of films considered the best and List of films considered the worst. Both are top read articles. While the list may not seem encyclopedic, we aren't just an encyclopedia, we are a reference work. We are a biographical dictionary, an almanac, and a gazetteer, all in one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'A consensus of opinions'? The only 'consensus' that the article demonstrates is that cherry-picked sources sometimes agree with each other - which is unsurprising, since they were selected for their POV. And as for your suggestion as to what else Wikipedia is other than an encyclopaedia, it is not only a questionable assertion (you cite no policy or guideline), but is also utterly irrelevant, since such publications don't include facile opinionated lists concerning the names of the offspring of 'celebrities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An example of explicitly encyclopedic coverage has already been provided above - the Encyclopedia of Motherhood. Other sources provided include the quality press and academic works. It seems clear that the matter is well covered across a variety and number of sources. In trying to deny this you seem to be representing your own personal opinion, unsupported by fact or evidence. This does not seem to be a neutral position and, with insults such as facile, seems both uncivil and contrary to policy. As for cherry-picking, if you think there's some large body of coverage about the topic which has not been represented in a proportionate way, then again we need to see some evidence of this. Your personal opinion is insufficient because this is not a vote. Andrew (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ' explicitly encyclopedic coverage' you cite is a piece criticising 'celebrity mothers' for multiple supposed transgressions, which mentions in passing "outlandish, often embarrassing" names given to children, and gives a few examples of such (without surnames). It is absolutely not an encyclopaedia article on the topic of 'celebrity baby names', and therefore cannot be cited as evidence that an encyclopaedia should include a list of 'List of unusual celebrity baby names'. And yes the list under discussion in this AfD is facile and unencyclopaedic, and I am expressing my opinion that Wikipedia should not include facile unencyclopaedic content - if the people promoting such facile unencyclopaedic content chose to see my advocacy of the stated objectives of an online encyclopaedia as a 'personal attack' that is their problem, not mine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That encyclopedia presents the matter in the context of a wider topic - celebrity motherhood. It is not a passing mention in the sense of being tangential because naming the child is a proper part of the larger topic and so satisfies WP:SIGCOV. If we were to follow their example, then we would expand the topic to cover celebrity motherhood or celebrity parenthood and notice that these are both red links. Such development is the proper way forward, per our editing policy; deletion is not. Andrew (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a single sentence. As for an article on 'celebrity parenthood', that is not the topic of this AfD, and accordingly our opinions on the merits of such an article are irrelevant - I can see nothing in Wikipedia policy that suggests that a hypothetical claim that an article could be expanded to cover another topic entirely would be a legitimate reason not to delete otherwise unacceptable content. If you want to create such an article, feel free to do so - assuming you can find the necessary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it is quite interesting, it isn't very objective or a suitable item for inclusion. Looks more like Buzzfeed than Wikipedia.. Shritwod (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indiscriminate list of trivia with no objective criteria and also a BLP landmine. I can't see lists of this nature having any sort of encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2014 (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.