- 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Lists of people by occupation
- Lists of people by occupation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The occupations listed here appear to be indiscriminate. It contains most but not all of the lists of people by occupation. Per WP:LISTNAME, "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections." Power~enwiki ( talk) 06:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as being entirely indiscriminate. I'm not entirely sure that "Centenarian" (to take one example) is an occupation, and the list that link goes to is specifically for businesspeople who happened to pass the 100-year mark, so there are potentially further issues if anyone feels like wading through them. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Standard, and very helpful and convenient List of lists article, of which there are tens of thousands [1], including List of lists of lists, Lists of people by nationality, List of lists of lists#People, etc. There is no reason not to have this article, and every reason to have it, as it is a helpful resource and more convenient than trying to wade through a Category. There is nothing indiscriminate about it; it is clearly defined and finite, and if any articles are missing, they can simply be added. The article also keeps the individual articles therein from being orphans. Softlavender ( talk) 08:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep This is a contents page, which goes hand-in-hand with various categories ( WP:CLN). It serves as navigation for the reader to related articles. Individual additions that editors question (such as "Centenarian") can be discussed via the talkpage to include/remove as needed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep,
WP:USEFUL
Siuenti (
씨유엔티) 18:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- You realize that's expressly an
argument to avoid in deletion discussions?
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 19:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- WP:WHICHBIT says that? Siuenti ( 씨유엔티) 19:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- You realize that's expressly an
argument to avoid in deletion discussions?
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 19:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep for navigational purposes. This article could only become redundant if we ended up removing every other List of x articles. Ajf773 ( talk) 20:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep- Seems like a pretty standard navigational list. We have some lists of people based on occupation. This is a list of those lists (or, if it's missing some, they can be added). It's an index, not a list of arbitrarily chosen occupations. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Update: Struck keep !vote for now. The more I dig, the more it gets messy. We have lists of people by occupation, but then each occupation includes lists of people in that occupation in particular countries, lists of former [occupation], many subtypes, etc. It's still a plausible index page, but with so many pages, there needs to be some big picture thought about organization -- and if it's woefully incomplete, since the purpose is navigational utility rather than a notable topic, it does a disservice to readers rather than a service (a common issue with index pages is that they give the incorrect impression of actually including all that they are supposed to include, dynamic list tag or not, since they are a meta list rather than an encyclopedic list). I don't feel comfortable arguing to delete, since the issues seem surmountable, but meh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- I tried to close this as a snow keep, but it was undone. I'm unwilling to spend more time on this article until the AfD process finishes. Power~enwiki ( talk) 18:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per Softlavender. Lists of lists are a thing, and it's unfortunate that some editors choose to nominate them at AfD without first seeking to understand why they exist and what they are for. Jclemens ( talk) 20:56, 10 June 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Lists of people by occupation
- Lists of people by occupation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The occupations listed here appear to be indiscriminate. It contains most but not all of the lists of people by occupation. Per WP:LISTNAME, "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections." Power~enwiki ( talk) 06:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as being entirely indiscriminate. I'm not entirely sure that "Centenarian" (to take one example) is an occupation, and the list that link goes to is specifically for businesspeople who happened to pass the 100-year mark, so there are potentially further issues if anyone feels like wading through them. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Standard, and very helpful and convenient List of lists article, of which there are tens of thousands [1], including List of lists of lists, Lists of people by nationality, List of lists of lists#People, etc. There is no reason not to have this article, and every reason to have it, as it is a helpful resource and more convenient than trying to wade through a Category. There is nothing indiscriminate about it; it is clearly defined and finite, and if any articles are missing, they can simply be added. The article also keeps the individual articles therein from being orphans. Softlavender ( talk) 08:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep This is a contents page, which goes hand-in-hand with various categories ( WP:CLN). It serves as navigation for the reader to related articles. Individual additions that editors question (such as "Centenarian") can be discussed via the talkpage to include/remove as needed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep,
WP:USEFUL
Siuenti (
씨유엔티) 18:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- You realize that's expressly an
argument to avoid in deletion discussions?
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 19:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- WP:WHICHBIT says that? Siuenti ( 씨유엔티) 19:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- You realize that's expressly an
argument to avoid in deletion discussions?
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 19:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep for navigational purposes. This article could only become redundant if we ended up removing every other List of x articles. Ajf773 ( talk) 20:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep- Seems like a pretty standard navigational list. We have some lists of people based on occupation. This is a list of those lists (or, if it's missing some, they can be added). It's an index, not a list of arbitrarily chosen occupations. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Update: Struck keep !vote for now. The more I dig, the more it gets messy. We have lists of people by occupation, but then each occupation includes lists of people in that occupation in particular countries, lists of former [occupation], many subtypes, etc. It's still a plausible index page, but with so many pages, there needs to be some big picture thought about organization -- and if it's woefully incomplete, since the purpose is navigational utility rather than a notable topic, it does a disservice to readers rather than a service (a common issue with index pages is that they give the incorrect impression of actually including all that they are supposed to include, dynamic list tag or not, since they are a meta list rather than an encyclopedic list). I don't feel comfortable arguing to delete, since the issues seem surmountable, but meh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- I tried to close this as a snow keep, but it was undone. I'm unwilling to spend more time on this article until the AfD process finishes. Power~enwiki ( talk) 18:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per Softlavender. Lists of lists are a thing, and it's unfortunate that some editors choose to nominate them at AfD without first seeking to understand why they exist and what they are for. Jclemens ( talk) 20:56, 10 June 2017 (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.