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. Renata 05:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply

List of redheads (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone better have a good explanation to why this has existed for over 2 years on Wikipedia. Why are we listing people by hair colour? What about a list of people with black hair which would encompass pretty much everyone of african and asian descent? There seem to be quite a few useless people lists on Wikipedia, but this one is probably shouting out the loudest to be deleted. - hahnch e n 03:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. -- S onicChao ^talk 03:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, redheads are rare. -- Petri Krohn 03:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Yes, redheads are far more rare than people with any other hair color. I do, however, think that we should remove some of the redlinks. ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 04:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not rare enough to justify a listing like this. 23skidoo 04:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above point. Sharkface217 04:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete red heads aren't rare enough that there should be list of them. Besides, why should there be a list of people by hair colour? It's too vague for a list, like List of men would be. List of people executed for homosexuality is fair enough because the list is specific and there is a reason for having it (i.e. someone researching the persecution of homosexuals) but I can see no reason for this list of redheads. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 05:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information Hobbeslover ^{talk/ contribs} 06:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This does not fall under any listed criteria of "not collection". You should provide more reasoning. Valters 07:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This is a rather arbitrary way to list people. It also has zero references and I imagine it'd be challenging to find a credible source for a good number of these listings. shotwell 06:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Indescriminate collection... and most of my favourite redheads are missing (and what about dye jobs!) SkierRMH, 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I don't think you read the article. The article discriminates on people who died their hair red. ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 06:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• delete random body trait is always an arbitrary and indescriminate way to list people. -- Jayron 32 06:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Even if there is some entertainment value in he idea that someone actually added it. At least I am smiling while shaking my head and voting delete. Dalf | Talk 07:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - This information is interesting, and I just don't see how it hurts Wikipedia to have it. Valters 07:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - This would imply we need a list of blondes, brunettes, and every color in the rainbow. Mets 08:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom. Gelston 10:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as listcruft. Reyk _YO! 10:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Listcruft is not a reasons. It can easily equal "I don't like it". Please give a little more than a one word reason.- Mgm| ^(talk) 12:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment- Fine. Delete because:
      • The list was created just for the sake of having such a list
      • The list is of interest to a very limited number of people
      • The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
      • The underlying concept is non-notable
      • The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable
      • The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia. Reyk _YO! 19:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not likely to ever be comprehensive, verifiable, or useful. That, and I'm upset because I'm not on it. Jivlain 12:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Even with redheads being rare, this will never be comprehensive, nor useful. It would also set a very bad precedent for other hair colors. - Mgm| ^(talk) 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Gzkn 13:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Charlie 13:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, no reason why Wikipedia should have this. Reading the keep arguments here doesn't help. Punkmorten 15:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as an arbitrary and unwieldly list.-- danntm ^T _C 15:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and for inherent NPOV. "Rare" in this case limits the number of members of the list to hundreds of thousands or millions, so within that size of a group, "notable" can't help but become a matter of editors' personal likes and dislikes. - Markeer 16:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I've created several lists and worked on saving some. I despise "listcruft" as a reason to do anything. However in this case I don't see that this as a meaningful commonality. The only people I can think of who would be notable or defined by being redheaded is models and maybe entertainers. A list limited to one or both of those topics could work, but I feel that just a general list of redheads fails to be useful.-- T. Anthony 17:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Recreate as a category. Just H 19:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - What would the category be called? Would it even be an allowable category? Like, wouldn't the people voting above have the same complaints if it was a category? ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete stupid list. Pathlessdesert 19:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Non-encyclopedic indiscriminate collection of information that does not warrant an article or a category. Agent 86 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. johno95
• Delete as per nom and others. Silly list. ~ Ed Boy ^[p]\ _[m]/ ^[c] 21:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete It's just not encyclopedic. TSO1D 01:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Completely arbitrary criteria. There is nothing in any way special about having red hair. Unencyclopedic to the point of asurdity. WJBscribe 13:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment - While it looks like this is going to be deleted, I thought I would mention that while "living" redheads may not be as useful a list (though I wonder about that), a list of historical figures who had red hair would be. As would be the fictional characters. (When one writes a paper on the methodologies of authors in describing the "how" of character design, for example.) So if possible, I'd like to suggest that the list be split to List of fictional redheads and List of historical figures with red hair, and (if consensus suggests deletion) delete the rest. - jc37 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I agree and can help make these lists when the time comes. Assuming deletion succeeds, will the two lists ( List of fictional redheads and List of historical figures with red hair) be split into "==Natural redheads==", "==Natural redheads who dyed their hair another color==", and "==Notable people who dyed their hair red=="? Or . . . will these lists have each of the subgroups combined? ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 16:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• While it may be useful to know about famous or historical people who dyed their hair red - along with the reasons why (such as Lucille Ball's, fame for it) - In looking over this discussion, I think that that would be what should be jettisoned. Especially since eventually it could list anyone, since these days, anyone can dye their hair. COnsider the title for such a page: List of people noted for red hair, who actually dyed it red. (Though I suppose there may be a way to shorten the title?) And also, since I think nearly everyone who would be on that list would be from at least as recent as the 20th century. So by default the two lists I suggested should be about "natural" redheads. As for the reason for separate lists from Red hair, is because it's a natural "split", due to length. It's just being done proactively. - jc37 14:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• I don't think a list of redheads is useful in the slightest, no matter how it's chopped up. - hahnch e n 18:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• reply Red hair is hardly a significant trait. I am not sure that any list where the primary criteria for inclusion is a random body trait is all that encyclopedic. Perhaps a SHORT subsection in the article titled Red hair is appropriate, but none of these makes the minimum requirements for a stand alone article. -- Jayron 32 21:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Ok. Point taken. What about a category? ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 21:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• We've been already discussing on CfD the likelyhood that all characteristics of fictional characters (such as wealthy, lame, etc) should be lists, rather than categories. - jc37 14:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. No category. riana_dzasta 12:09, 8 December 2006 (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.