Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historically male names now used for females

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; no point in letting this go on. - Daniel.Bryant 10:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of historically male names now used for females

Is this list supposed to mean anything?? I'm quite sure that there is no absoluteness of the statement that until 1945, only boys had this name; since 1945, only girls do. Georgia guy 00:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculous original research. Soltak | Talk 00:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As well as the above, inaccurate - Leslie, for example, has a separate female spelling (Lesley). In any case, covered in Unisex Names EliminatorJR 00:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not really relevant, but the spelling Leslie, in the U.S. at least is typically a girl's name. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 06:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be duplicate information (Unisex name), anything not there already could be merged. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless and unencyclopedic Matchups 05:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR at best. Mostly duplicated by Unisex names. --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 06:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. This is basically a duplicate of Unisex names. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 07:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR --K.Z ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 09:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research and is just a list a useless list as-well as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 11:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per obvious WP:OR violation. Pea ceNT 15:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Unisex name has it better (and that article really needs some cleanup too). Probably a case of someone starting an article without searching first. --UsaSatsui 16:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Unisex name already covers it with much more content.--John Lake 16:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list does not describe anything useful, or absolute. --Danaman5 17:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant and no added value.-- danntm ^T _C 19:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:OR, and WP:NOT#INFO. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Lacks notability. see Wiki doesn't collect info nor is it a directory (see sections above "doesn't collect info". BIGNOLE (Question?) (What I do) 19:24, 19 February 2007 (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.