- 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 keep. "Keep" voters, please fix the issues noted. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
List of deaf people
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of deaf people ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A list of people who were/are (allegedly) deaf, created in 2004 with only 12 names, half of which were redlinks, and none of them sourced. This was a "keep" in the 2005 AFD, mostly unsourced then. Wikipedia standards have leaned more towards reliable sourcing in 15 years. Tagged since 2015 as needing citations. Only 3 citations on the entire page. Most of the people on this list are not explained as to why they are on it. It is just an unsourced list of people. Some historical figures. Some WP:BLP issues. One redlink on the list, and no sourcing for it. Two section headings are repetitive: "Notable deaf people" and "Notable people who are deaf" I don't see the purpose of this list, that would not otherwise be better served with a category listing, such as Category:Deaf people. — Maile ( talk) 19:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Notable topic. Lots of your issues are just SOFIXIT things. Also, people seem to think that if there is a category, there is no need for a list, or vise versa, that's not how it is. ★Trekker ( talk) 10:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete well I took up the sourcing issue and removed all unsourced entries. The lonh standing lack of sourcing is not a good sign for rigor. I think there is also an issue with some people only becoming death later in life. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note - I also question what is defined as "deaf" for this list. The only lead sentence there is, gives the definition a gray area of "deaf or hard-of-hearing people". Are they one and the same? As people get older, hearing on some level decreases. That's probably just a part of aging in general for a lot of the earth's population. This was an extensive list, before the above clean-up. Of the 7 people that remain after the above clean-up, Halle Berry has partial hearing loss in one ear, but other wise is able to hear. So, what use is this list serving? — Maile ( talk) 23:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as index of articles by significant shared fact per WP:LISTPURP and as complement to Category:Deaf people per WP:CLN. As noted above, no issues have been raised that are not fixable. Blanking entries rather than copying sources from the linked articles is honestly the laziest and most disruptive to "fix" the lack of inline sourcing, and is akin to deleting misspelled words rather than correcting them. If the content belongs in the list, it should remain and be improved. postdlf ( talk) 14:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The list quality is poor, but the subject is worthy of coverage as the deaf community is clearly notable enough for this form of coverage. Articles should not be deleted simply on the basis that they haven't been well taken care of. FYI - I have expanded the list to include deaf sportspeople.
SFB
12:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @
Sillyfolkboy: Look in the recent history, there were a lot more entries in this list that were indiscriminately blanked instead of just being fixed with inline citations from their own articles (including
Helen Keller! I can't view that removal as a good faith attempt to improve the content), I unfortunately don't have the time to restore those myself.
postdlf (
talk)
15:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @
Postdlf: That is clearly an overreach.
Wikipedia:Verifiability only requires inline citation for material that is likely to challenged. Short, uncontroversial descriptions of people widely renowned as deaf, such as Helen Keller, do not need citation and I also find it hard to take that action in good faith. This is common practice across the community on such articles. People should also consider how such action can be interpreted as an attack on a disadvantaged group. I'll restore those now.
SFB
15:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- The same editor did that on
another similar list currently nominated for deletion, again without regard to whether inclusion was accurate or whether the subject was dead so BLP couldn't even be used as a fig leaf to justify the blanking. I just migrated sources from their respective articles to moot the issue, which is clearly what should be done by anyone who thinks inline citations are necessary in the list.
postdlf (
talk)
15:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ Postdlf: I realise we have a much bigger problem around deafness because previous discussions that sought to distinguish the topics of deafness and hearing impairment were undone with subsequent edits and this move by Doc James to again frame deafness primarily from a medical perspective rather than a cultural one. This deletion discussion is rooted in people's lack of knowledge of the deaf community and deaf identify. As someone with hands on experience of that, I sometimes forget that these things aren't common knowledge. Really we should have links like deaf and deafness go to a disambiguation rather than the medical-oriented hearing loss (which should be hearing impairment as in congenital cases the ability was never there to be lost). So many problems here... I've started a discussion. SFB 17:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- The same editor did that on
another similar list currently nominated for deletion, again without regard to whether inclusion was accurate or whether the subject was dead so BLP couldn't even be used as a fig leaf to justify the blanking. I just migrated sources from their respective articles to moot the issue, which is clearly what should be done by anyone who thinks inline citations are necessary in the list.
postdlf (
talk)
15:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @
Postdlf: That is clearly an overreach.
Wikipedia:Verifiability only requires inline citation for material that is likely to challenged. Short, uncontroversial descriptions of people widely renowned as deaf, such as Helen Keller, do not need citation and I also find it hard to take that action in good faith. This is common practice across the community on such articles. People should also consider how such action can be interpreted as an attack on a disadvantaged group. I'll restore those now.
SFB
15:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @
Sillyfolkboy: Look in the recent history, there were a lot more entries in this list that were indiscriminately blanked instead of just being fixed with inline citations from their own articles (including
Helen Keller! I can't view that removal as a good faith attempt to improve the content), I unfortunately don't have the time to restore those myself.
postdlf (
talk)
15:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Let's keep separate the issues of notability and quality of the article. The topic is certainly notable, even though the article requires a lot of work. If we deleted every article about a notable topic that was badly written, it would be a loss for Wikipedia. Sundayclose ( talk) 20:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - This is more like a directory than an article. I don't see a good reason to delete. It is a useful resource. Expertwikiguy ( talk) 19:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NLIST aides navigation and provides information. Many blue links. Lightburst ( talk) 23:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep. "Keep" voters, please fix the issues noted. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
List of deaf people
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of deaf people ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A list of people who were/are (allegedly) deaf, created in 2004 with only 12 names, half of which were redlinks, and none of them sourced. This was a "keep" in the 2005 AFD, mostly unsourced then. Wikipedia standards have leaned more towards reliable sourcing in 15 years. Tagged since 2015 as needing citations. Only 3 citations on the entire page. Most of the people on this list are not explained as to why they are on it. It is just an unsourced list of people. Some historical figures. Some WP:BLP issues. One redlink on the list, and no sourcing for it. Two section headings are repetitive: "Notable deaf people" and "Notable people who are deaf" I don't see the purpose of this list, that would not otherwise be better served with a category listing, such as Category:Deaf people. — Maile ( talk) 19:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Notable topic. Lots of your issues are just SOFIXIT things. Also, people seem to think that if there is a category, there is no need for a list, or vise versa, that's not how it is. ★Trekker ( talk) 10:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Delete well I took up the sourcing issue and removed all unsourced entries. The lonh standing lack of sourcing is not a good sign for rigor. I think there is also an issue with some people only becoming death later in life. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Note - I also question what is defined as "deaf" for this list. The only lead sentence there is, gives the definition a gray area of "deaf or hard-of-hearing people". Are they one and the same? As people get older, hearing on some level decreases. That's probably just a part of aging in general for a lot of the earth's population. This was an extensive list, before the above clean-up. Of the 7 people that remain after the above clean-up, Halle Berry has partial hearing loss in one ear, but other wise is able to hear. So, what use is this list serving? — Maile ( talk) 23:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as index of articles by significant shared fact per WP:LISTPURP and as complement to Category:Deaf people per WP:CLN. As noted above, no issues have been raised that are not fixable. Blanking entries rather than copying sources from the linked articles is honestly the laziest and most disruptive to "fix" the lack of inline sourcing, and is akin to deleting misspelled words rather than correcting them. If the content belongs in the list, it should remain and be improved. postdlf ( talk) 14:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The list quality is poor, but the subject is worthy of coverage as the deaf community is clearly notable enough for this form of coverage. Articles should not be deleted simply on the basis that they haven't been well taken care of. FYI - I have expanded the list to include deaf sportspeople.
SFB
12:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @
Sillyfolkboy: Look in the recent history, there were a lot more entries in this list that were indiscriminately blanked instead of just being fixed with inline citations from their own articles (including
Helen Keller! I can't view that removal as a good faith attempt to improve the content), I unfortunately don't have the time to restore those myself.
postdlf (
talk)
15:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @
Postdlf: That is clearly an overreach.
Wikipedia:Verifiability only requires inline citation for material that is likely to challenged. Short, uncontroversial descriptions of people widely renowned as deaf, such as Helen Keller, do not need citation and I also find it hard to take that action in good faith. This is common practice across the community on such articles. People should also consider how such action can be interpreted as an attack on a disadvantaged group. I'll restore those now.
SFB
15:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- The same editor did that on
another similar list currently nominated for deletion, again without regard to whether inclusion was accurate or whether the subject was dead so BLP couldn't even be used as a fig leaf to justify the blanking. I just migrated sources from their respective articles to moot the issue, which is clearly what should be done by anyone who thinks inline citations are necessary in the list.
postdlf (
talk)
15:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ Postdlf: I realise we have a much bigger problem around deafness because previous discussions that sought to distinguish the topics of deafness and hearing impairment were undone with subsequent edits and this move by Doc James to again frame deafness primarily from a medical perspective rather than a cultural one. This deletion discussion is rooted in people's lack of knowledge of the deaf community and deaf identify. As someone with hands on experience of that, I sometimes forget that these things aren't common knowledge. Really we should have links like deaf and deafness go to a disambiguation rather than the medical-oriented hearing loss (which should be hearing impairment as in congenital cases the ability was never there to be lost). So many problems here... I've started a discussion. SFB 17:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- The same editor did that on
another similar list currently nominated for deletion, again without regard to whether inclusion was accurate or whether the subject was dead so BLP couldn't even be used as a fig leaf to justify the blanking. I just migrated sources from their respective articles to moot the issue, which is clearly what should be done by anyone who thinks inline citations are necessary in the list.
postdlf (
talk)
15:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @
Postdlf: That is clearly an overreach.
Wikipedia:Verifiability only requires inline citation for material that is likely to challenged. Short, uncontroversial descriptions of people widely renowned as deaf, such as Helen Keller, do not need citation and I also find it hard to take that action in good faith. This is common practice across the community on such articles. People should also consider how such action can be interpreted as an attack on a disadvantaged group. I'll restore those now.
SFB
15:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- @
Sillyfolkboy: Look in the recent history, there were a lot more entries in this list that were indiscriminately blanked instead of just being fixed with inline citations from their own articles (including
Helen Keller! I can't view that removal as a good faith attempt to improve the content), I unfortunately don't have the time to restore those myself.
postdlf (
talk)
15:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Let's keep separate the issues of notability and quality of the article. The topic is certainly notable, even though the article requires a lot of work. If we deleted every article about a notable topic that was badly written, it would be a loss for Wikipedia. Sundayclose ( talk) 20:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - This is more like a directory than an article. I don't see a good reason to delete. It is a useful resource. Expertwikiguy ( talk) 19:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NLIST aides navigation and provides information. Many blue links. Lightburst ( talk) 23:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- 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.