Lesley
#4,546 for girls in 2025, 30 births · Last seen for boys in 2016 at #8,816
Given to girls 87.7% of the time
- Peak · girls
- 1979 · 913 births
- Debut · girls
- 5 births
- In top 100 · girls
- neverof 146 years
- Total births · girls
- 34,301since 1893
Lesley over time
Rank within each sex, plotted together. Click any year to open it.
Gaps mean fewer than 5 babies received the name that year, so the SSA doesn't publish it.
Show data table
| Year | girls | boys | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| rank | births | rank | births | |
| 2025 | #4,546 | 30 | — | |
| 2024 | #4,039 | 36 | — | |
| 2023 | #4,655 | 29 | — | |
| 2022 | #3,171 | 51 | — | |
| 2021 | #3,735 | 40 | — | |
| 2020 | #3,091 | 51 | — | |
| 2019 | #3,130 | 51 | — | |
| 2018 | #2,744 | 62 | — | |
| 2017 | #3,091 | 52 | — | |
| 2016 | #2,426 | 76 | #8,816 | 8 |
| 2015 | #2,039 | 96 | #10,644 | 6 |
| 2014 | #1,804 | 113 | — | |
| 2013 | #1,725 | 120 | — | |
| 2012 | #1,639 | 131 | — | |
| 2011 | #1,329 | 175 | #9,600 | 7 |
| 2010 | #1,122 | 219 | #9,693 | 7 |
| 2009 | #1,132 | 223 | #7,692 | 10 |
| 2008 | #1,030 | 254 | #12,553 | 5 |
| 2007 | #813 | 353 | #9,788 | 7 |
| 2006 | #743 | 371 | #6,460 | 12 |
| 2005 | #715 | 382 | #8,299 | 8 |
| 2004 | #610 | 451 | #7,536 | 9 |
| 2003 | #603 | 452 | #5,877 | 12 |
| 2002 | #563 | 471 | #6,088 | 11 |
| 2001 | #523 | 509 | #6,935 | 9 |
| 2000 | #429 | 658 | #4,389 | 17 |
| 1999 | #408 | 682 | #3,591 | 21 |
| 1998 | #394 | 695 | #4,413 | 15 |
| 1997 | #415 | 626 | #4,246 | 15 |
| 1996 | #431 | 591 | #4,185 | 15 |
| 1995 | #740 | 276 | #5,501 | 10 |
| 1994 | #719 | 288 | #3,326 | 20 |
| 1993 | #688 | 314 | #3,042 | 22 |
| 1992 | #635 | 354 | #3,338 | 19 |
| 1991 | #606 | 372 | #2,344 | 30 |
| 1990 | #540 | 440 | #2,553 | 26 |
| 1989 | #566 | 394 | #2,416 | 27 |
| 1988 | #472 | 480 | #2,509 | 23 |
| 1987 | #463 | 472 | #2,333 | 24 |
| 1986 | #421 | 520 | #1,617 | 40 |
| 1985 | #401 | 565 | #2,116 | 26 |
| 1984 | #378 | 606 | #1,507 | 41 |
| 1983 | #318 | 734 | #1,470 | 42 |
| 1982 | #296 | 833 | #1,539 | 40 |
| 1981 | #282 | 870 | #1,188 | 60 |
| 1980 | #269 | 928 | #1,272 | 53 |
| 1979 | #267 | 913 | #1,435 | 42 |
| 1978 | #275 | 842 | #1,352 | 46 |
| 1977 | #281 | 848 | #937 | 82 |
| 1976 | #305 | 752 | #1,123 | 57 |
| 1975 | #321 | 714 | #1,127 | 56 |
| 1974 | #302 | 782 | #1,073 | 59 |
| 1973 | #348 | 611 | #932 | 75 |
| 1972 | #345 | 641 | #1,000 | 65 |
| 1971 | #313 | 850 | #965 | 71 |
| 1970 | #342 | 766 | #921 | 75 |
| 1969 | #334 | 714 | #944 | 66 |
| 1968 | #343 | 661 | #799 | 86 |
| 1967 | #335 | 689 | #739 | 99 |
| 1966 | #324 | 752 | #737 | 100 |
| 1965 | #330 | 744 | #759 | 95 |
| 1964 | #482 | 403 | #860 | 78 |
| 1963 | #519 | 350 | #807 | 88 |
| 1962 | #564 | 304 | #830 | 84 |
| 1961 | #606 | 276 | #874 | 76 |
| 1960 | #646 | 244 | #870 | 76 |
| 1959 | #558 | 305 | #756 | 101 |
| 1958 | #587 | 286 | #733 | 102 |
| 1957 | #474 | 397 | #831 | 83 |
| 1956 | #544 | 295 | #833 | 80 |
| 1955 | #506 | 333 | #893 | 69 |
| 1954 | #473 | 354 | #833 | 75 |
| 1953 | #504 | 297 | #858 | 70 |
| 1952 | #479 | 307 | #791 | 79 |
| 1951 | #478 | 297 | #749 | 86 |
| 1950 | #508 | 254 | #850 | 64 |
| 1949 | #518 | 249 | #764 | 81 |
| 1948 | #574 | 212 | #802 | 71 |
| 1947 | #582 | 215 | #822 | 71 |
| 1946 | #553 | 204 | #869 | 57 |
| 1945 | #642 | 129 | #927 | 48 |
| 1944 | #651 | 129 | #741 | 70 |
| 1943 | #795 | 95 | #797 | 68 |
| 1942 | #748 | 102 | #839 | 60 |
| 1941 | #975 | 56 | #925 | 47 |
| 1940 | #1,313 | 32 | #830 | 57 |
| 1939 | #1,221 | 36 | #954 | 43 |
| 1938 | #1,159 | 39 | #1,009 | 40 |
| 1937 | #1,196 | 36 | #1,016 | 39 |
| 1936 | #1,801 | 18 | #1,182 | 31 |
| 1935 | #1,381 | 28 | #1,057 | 37 |
| 1934 | #1,556 | 23 | #982 | 42 |
| 1933 | #1,906 | 17 | #1,103 | 35 |
| 1932 | #4,411 | 5 | #1,216 | 31 |
| 1931 | #2,972 | 9 | #1,394 | 25 |
| 1930 | #3,345 | 8 | #1,093 | 40 |
| 1929 | #2,437 | 13 | #1,078 | 41 |
| 1928 | #4,725 | 5 | #1,019 | 46 |
| 1927 | #2,433 | 14 | #982 | 51 |
| 1926 | #2,351 | 15 | #1,192 | 36 |
| 1925 | #2,489 | 14 | #924 | 53 |
| 1924 | #4,002 | 7 | #1,133 | 40 |
| 1923 | #3,350 | 9 | #1,057 | 45 |
| 1922 | #4,445 | 6 | #914 | 58 |
| 1921 | #2,509 | 14 | #1,140 | 39 |
| 1920 | #2,357 | 15 | #975 | 50 |
| 1919 | #3,817 | 7 | #1,063 | 41 |
| 1918 | #2,822 | 11 | #1,062 | 41 |
| 1917 | #4,594 | 5 | #1,113 | 36 |
| 1916 | #2,498 | 12 | #1,240 | 29 |
| 1915 | #2,688 | 10 | #1,265 | 27 |
| 1914 | #3,618 | 5 | #1,260 | 22 |
| 1913 | #2,034 | 10 | #1,075 | 22 |
| 1912 | — | #1,059 | 19 | |
| 1911 | — | #1,038 | 11 | |
| 1910 | #2,398 | 5 | #928 | 12 |
| 1909 | — | #1,277 | 6 | |
| 1908 | — | #825 | 11 | |
| 1907 | — | — | ||
| 1906 | — | #1,004 | 7 | |
| 1905 | — | #786 | 10 | |
| 1904 | — | #966 | 7 | |
| 1903 | — | #527 | 17 | |
| 1902 | — | — | ||
| 1901 | — | #943 | 6 | |
| 1900 | — | #836 | 10 | |
| 1899 | — | — | ||
| 1898 | — | #804 | 8 | |
| 1897 | — | #1,057 | 5 | |
| 1896 | — | #1,101 | 5 | |
| 1895 | — | — | ||
| 1894 | — | — | ||
| 1893 | #1,437 | 5 | — | |
| 1892 | — | — | ||
| 1891 | — | — | ||
| 1890 | — | — | ||
| 1889 | — | — | ||
| 1888 | — | — | ||
| 1887 | — | — | ||
| 1886 | — | — | ||
| 1885 | — | — | ||
| 1884 | — | — | ||
| 1883 | — | #892 | 5 | |
| 1882 | — | #837 | 6 | |
| 1881 | — | — | ||
| 1880 | — | — | ||
The first year at least five girls were named Lesley! It came in at #1,437, and was given to 5 baby girls.
Quietest stretch: 1893–1912, when fewer than 6 girls a year got the name.
See more about Lesley
- 507 spots since 2024 (#4,039 → #4,546)
- 1,455 spots since 2020 (#3,091 → #4,546)
- 2,507 spots since 2015 (#2,039 → #4,546)
- Biggest jump: 338 spots in 1941 (#1,313 → #975)
- Biggest drop: 217 spots in 2008 (#813 → #1,030)
- Debuted 1893
- Peaked 1979 at #267 (913 births)
- Births halved by 1989, 10 yrs later
- Top 10: never
- Top 100: never
- Top 1,000: 67 yrs · run 1941–2007
- Highest: 1 in 1,758 girls born in 1979 were named Lesley (0.06%)
- Latest: 1 in 53,576 girls born in 2025 (0.00%)
- 22.5% of all girls named Lesley (7,719) were born in this decade
- Mostly boys until 1940, mostly girls since
Show by decade
| Decade | Births | Best rank | Avg rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1890s | 5 | #1,437 (1893) | #1,437 |
| 1900s | 0 | — | — |
| 1910s | 65 | #2,034 (1913) | #3,059 |
| 1920s | 112 | #2,351 (1926) | #3,110 |
| 1930s | 219 | #1,159 (1938) | #2,095 |
| 1940s | 1,423 | #518 (1949) | #735 |
| 1950s | 3,125 | #473 (1954) | #511 |
| 1960s | 5,137 | #324 (1966) | #448 |
| 1970s | 7,719 | #267 (1979) | #310 |
| 1980s | 6,402 | #269 (1980) | #387 |
| 1990s | 4,638 | #394 (1998) | #558 |
| 2000s | 4,124 | #429 (2000) | #716 |
| 2010s | 1,095 | #1,122 (2010) | #2,105 |
| 2020s | 237 | #3,091 (2020) | #3,873 |
All figures count published births only (names given to at least 5 girls in a year). Registrations before 1937 are incomplete, so early shares and totals run low.
Lesley in 1962
Top girls' names in 1962
Top boys' names in 1962
More about 1962
girls
1,966,603 girls got a published name in 1962; 1 in 6,469 of them was named Lesley, which outranked 92.6% of the 7,584 girls' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 15.9% of girls (24.6% in 1880, 7.0% in 2025).
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.
boys
2,068,772 boys got a published name in 1962; 1 in 24,628 of them was named Lesley, which outranked 82.1% of the 4,631 boys' names that year. The ten most popular names covered 28.8% of boys (44.2% in 1880, 8.0% in 2025).
Tied names share a rank, as in SSA's lists.
Among names in the top 1,000 of either year.