This page is preserved as an archive of the associated article page's "votes for deletion" debate (the forerunner of articles for deletion). Please do not modify this page, nor delete it as an orphaned talk page.
Don't bite the newbies! Keep! --Ruhrjung 14:51, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
If on the pages are still all empty in a week's time, I'd suggest moving to the users personal space, deleting the redirects and dropping User:MattSal a note explaining what's going on. In any case these articles might be somewhat controversial because they are "almanacic" rather than "encyclopedic". If they're going to be unpolular anyway because of that, then MattSal should be spared the effort of filling in the information only to see it zapped later. Onebyone 15:18, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Delete if not filled. Andre Engels 16:29, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Is filled now, so vote withdrawn (that is, abstain) Andre Engels 06:31, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Delete unless the lists are made part of an article explaining different naming-related aspects of different cultures. Tuf-Kat 14:03, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
Delete if not filled. . -- BCorr ? Брайен 20:58, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Delete. And the pages that are linked from it as unencyclopedic source text. Also List of the most popular names in the 1880s which I renamed before realising all the other ones. Angela 22:51, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
Keep, what is unencyclopedic about the article? It might be more like an almanac but it isnt hurting anyone and might prove useful Alexandros 23:41, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Not unencyclopaedic. However, most of the lists seem to be empty. --Wik 02:53, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)
Keep, on the condition that a source is cited, or else this is unverifiable. Delete if no source is produced. I do think there is such a list though, so tracking down a source should be possible. I'd also support moving to List of Most Popular Names to keep List articles easily recognizable and separable. --Delirium 03:01, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)
If de-Americocentified, or stated to be just about the US, keep. It is one of the more genuinely interesting and encyclopædic lists, provided the source is stated. No Kylies or Craigs or names that look as though they come off a cereal box or from a soap opera in the 1880s, then. Weren't they lucky! :-) FearÉIREANN 05:22, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Rename to 'American' or globalize. (Probably easiest to move it.) -- Jake 16:11, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Uh, guys, it's true. There are lists of name frequency that are popularly posted on and circulated around the net based on counts of social security birth records in the U.S., and they're counted by decade, just as this guy has them split up. Someone named Mike Shackleford built his fame by analyzing the social security records to build these lists, and Shackleford updates them every year, so you can see the list of most popular boy's names and girl's name in, say, 1998, or 1999, or 2000. If the author of these Wikipedia articles doesn't provide all the lists, we can find them ourselves! Let's keep it (and there'll be no problems with POV either)!Wiwaxia 01:27, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Keep. can be improved. Cabalamat 01:36, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Delete, as it is now, unless you can get more specific. "Most popular names" either in the United States or Europe or Asia... Fuzheado 01:54, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Keep, a useful list. would be nice if projects being built weren't listed here so soon after being started. JamesDay 02:45, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Not sure what you're proposing here? Tualha 14:28, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC) Oh, I see. Yes, move them. Somewhat interesting but not WP material. I notice the creator, MattSal, has also done a few articles about names, such as John (name). Don't think we want those either. Tualha 14:35, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Keep. Seems more legitamate than most lists were keeping. Jack 21:47, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I delisted this fom VfD again as the couple of extra votes to move it, and one to keep it don't swing the previous vote, which was clearly to not delete these. Angela. 05:38, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
