Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Births in 2001

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Births in 2001[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable list per WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:LISTCRUFT of people from "births" section in the main article that was split from the RfC discussion, also that fails WP:NLIST and WP:BLPLISTS. MirrorPlanet (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MirrorPlanet (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:LISTPEOPLE which has two requirements both of which are met in this list which has only bluelinked entries and a reference for each. Meets WP:LISTPURP as a navigational list. Reading the linked RfC, the close does not recommend deletion of such a list, it merely mentioned a lack of agreement what to do overall, but a consensus to link to the list from the main year article. If we're going to start deleting these based on preference, there should probably be a discussion to follow up on the RfC which didn't result in consensus to do so. —siro χ o 06:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following split by the RfC, it changed to category link in hatnote, but there are too many lists of births from there, so they decided to split up into separate articles by hatnotes in each topic (Category:2000 births and Deaths in 2023). Hence, but some sources are WP:BLPPRIMARY. MirrorPlanet (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to the appropriate section in 2001. Far too unwieldy for a stand alone list, categories do their job quite well in these cases. Ajf773 (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I implemented this recently-created style guide for WP:BIRTHSECTION. MirrorPlanet (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:LISTPEOPLE. Merging back into 2001 isn't really an option, as sitewide consensus at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_199#RFC:_split_births_&_deaths_from_year_articles has found that this content does not belong there. As one of those who supported that position, I believe it's a reasonable interpretation of WP:SIZESPLIT. Also, any discussion to delete this would also be wise to include the various Lists of deaths by year that follow the same structure and are much more unwieldy than this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: Other years that lists of births for Births in 2002, Births in 2003, Births in 2004, etc. are appropriate section redirects, which is placed under Category:2XXX births hatnote. But it is too many of them to cite, because of WP:V. I assume that it fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTSTATS. MirrorPlanet (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as implementation of consensus found like six months ago, and as complement to Deaths in 2001. We can't put it back, as determined by RFC, and we shouldn't delete it because all the entries have sources and are organised chronologically, which meets WP:LISTPEOPLE. Category:2001 births has no sources, and is unsuitable for navigation because it lacks descriptions or dates, so this article meets WP:PURPLIST. Someone please run a date delinker on this though. Folly Mox (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See Category:Births by year. It is part of the overall category lists, and there is no justification to delete this one year, when the other individual Births by year lists date back 1000 BC are part of WP:YEARS. — Maile (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2023 (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.