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.
Keep - seems like a sensible navigational list. certainly the redlinks should be removed (as implied by the nominator, it would be absurd to try to create an exhaustive list of people with nicknames), and perhaps some additional sublists should be spun out, but that can happen at any point. — Rhododendritestalk \\
15:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep It's the nomination that we don't need as its arguments are flawed, being contrary to policy such as
WP:NOTPAPER, which makes it very clear that there's no practical limit. We already have lists with hundreds of of thousands of entries. Notice that
list of sportspeople,
list of species and
list of minor planets are all blue links, for example. When such lists get large, we just subdivide them.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
17:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Sportspeople, species, and planets are all countable, and we can make exhaustive lists about them. We will never be able to fully determine all the notable nicknames. It's inevitable that some nicknames aren't going to be included. Whereas, all minor planets will be included, and all
players who have made at least 30 international caps for Lebanon will be known. We will never be able to 100% know all sports-related nicknames. If the nickname is notable, it can be noted in the specific player's article.
Nehme1499 (
talk)
17:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm confused by this argument. These are all countable in the mathematical sense (they're not infinite). We can never expect to have an exhaustive list of sportspeople, nor of minor planets (on the other hand, numbered minor planets is just about manageable). That a list is incomplete doesn't seem like a good deletion rationale, and
WP:LISTCRIT explicitly advises against trying to make most lists exhaustive.
pburka (
talk)
16:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Uncountable does not mean what you think it means. The definition is "too many to be counted". Even rice on a plate is uncountable (even though, obviously, the number of grains of rice can technically be counted). I agree, we won't have an exhaustive list of sportspeople; what we do have, however, are specific lists, such as
footballers who have made at least 30 international caps for Lebanon (as I have pointed out above).
Nehme1499 (
talk)
16:54, 3 September 2020 (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.
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.
Keep - seems like a sensible navigational list. certainly the redlinks should be removed (as implied by the nominator, it would be absurd to try to create an exhaustive list of people with nicknames), and perhaps some additional sublists should be spun out, but that can happen at any point. — Rhododendritestalk \\
15:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep It's the nomination that we don't need as its arguments are flawed, being contrary to policy such as
WP:NOTPAPER, which makes it very clear that there's no practical limit. We already have lists with hundreds of of thousands of entries. Notice that
list of sportspeople,
list of species and
list of minor planets are all blue links, for example. When such lists get large, we just subdivide them.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
17:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Sportspeople, species, and planets are all countable, and we can make exhaustive lists about them. We will never be able to fully determine all the notable nicknames. It's inevitable that some nicknames aren't going to be included. Whereas, all minor planets will be included, and all
players who have made at least 30 international caps for Lebanon will be known. We will never be able to 100% know all sports-related nicknames. If the nickname is notable, it can be noted in the specific player's article.
Nehme1499 (
talk)
17:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm confused by this argument. These are all countable in the mathematical sense (they're not infinite). We can never expect to have an exhaustive list of sportspeople, nor of minor planets (on the other hand, numbered minor planets is just about manageable). That a list is incomplete doesn't seem like a good deletion rationale, and
WP:LISTCRIT explicitly advises against trying to make most lists exhaustive.
pburka (
talk)
16:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Uncountable does not mean what you think it means. The definition is "too many to be counted". Even rice on a plate is uncountable (even though, obviously, the number of grains of rice can technically be counted). I agree, we won't have an exhaustive list of sportspeople; what we do have, however, are specific lists, such as
footballers who have made at least 30 international caps for Lebanon (as I have pointed out above).
Nehme1499 (
talk)
16:54, 3 September 2020 (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.