Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distinguished Canadian Planners

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. The move can be done outside the scope of this discussion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguished Canadian Planners[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE list with subjective inclusion criteria. This is not a list of people who have been objectively identified by external sources as the canonical list of "distinguished" Canadian urban planners, but appears instead to permit inclusion of any random person in this field who has any plausible-sounding notability claim at all, even if it can only be primary sourced (and even if they don't actually have a Wikipedia article to link to, thus also serving as a WP:COATRACK for sneaking mini-biographies into Wikipedia despite their failure to actually pass an inclusion standard.) Lists of people are supposed to be organized on objective, quantifiable inclusion standards, not criteria that leave room for interpretation or opinion or self-promotion. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and refine the criteria to be "only those people with a wikipedia bio or who qualify for one under inclusion criteria. While not stated, the theme is being named a Fellow of the society (which if these were Profs would make them notable), getting an Order of Canada (which makes someone notable on it's own) and several academics who have been recognized as major contributors to the profession, which if correct makes them meet [WP:PROF]]. Each of these people likely deserve their own bio - and if they don't desrve a wikipedia bio, should be excluded from the list. I work with many Canadian planners and I can see this is not just run of the mill planner bios. Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Firstly, that's clearly not the theme here, because many people included in this list have neither of those distinctions. Secondly, on what basis could a list of "distinguished" Canadian urban planners ever fail to include Jennifer Keesmaat, literally the only Canadian urban planner the general public, outside the field of urban planning employees themselves, has ever actually heard of? Thirdly, even if this were to be kept it would still have to be moved to an appropriate title that avoids the subjectivity of "distinguished". Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to List of Canadian planners. Well why delete the whole thing, if the problem can be resolved by firming up the criteria in line with WP:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria and amending the selection of names to match? – By the way the "active" column should be made consistent, as some of them seem to have been "active" (presumably as planners) from the year of their birth: Noyster (talk), 17:30, 3 April 2018 (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.