Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of adoptees

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: use the category. Proponents of keeping say that the list can have structure that the category cannot; however in this case the category has structure (American adoptees, Welsh adoptees, etc) and the list has not. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-06 08:23Z

List of adoptees[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion but doesn't meet criteria. Relevant discussion on talk. No opinion from me. – Gurch 03:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems marginally of interest to me. Weak keep. - Che Nuevara 04:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's already a category for American adoptees (and, presumptively, adoptees of various nationalities), and putting it in list form like this, with no context, seems highly indiscriminate. --Hyperbole 05:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as lists may be sourced and categories cannot. CFD routinely kicks things over to lists and then AFD deletes them, I don't think that's the way things should work. --Dhartung | Talk 07:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Categorization most definitely can be sourced, and in an appropriate place — the article being categorized. Moreover, there is no relevant CFD discussion here (Category:Adoptees having never been mentioned at CFD), and you have not explained how the inclusion criteria for this list (which are, per the article, simply that the person was adopted) are narrow enough in scope to be useful. There are quite a lot of adopted people in the world. In contrast to the list's single inclusion criterion, the category implicitly employs the additional criteria of WP:BIO. Uncle G 12:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was covered by the speedy deletion criteria, by the way. The criterion is G7. The article's deletion was requested by its author, who has explained (on the talk page) that its creation was a mistake (given xyr subsequent discovery of the categories), and the article has no edits (other than the applications of various tags) by other editors. Uncle G 12:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - list of notable adoptees. Where, notable means that they meet WP:BIO. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The advantage of lists over categories is that they can contain redlinked entries, but why do we want to list people who aren't notable enough to have an article? If they're notable we can categorize them, if not then we don't want to. RJFJR 15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no good reason to delete this, lists have value over categories in some cases. Trollderella 16:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You've not stated what that actually is, in this case, and the actual author of the list states otherwise. Uncle G 16:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I second Chris above 61.19.54.164 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Rename The idea has potential, but as of right now it seems just like a list with no real context. If this article is kept, it will need major revamping. I also agree with renaming it to notable adoptees, if for nothing else but clarity that not every adoptee in the world is on the list. -Ryanbomber 17:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Uncle G and RJFJR that a category and not a list is indicated in this case. -- Alan McBeth 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sharkface217 20:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all names should be cited with sources, which is one advantage over categorization, another is the possibility of including notable people who don't have full fledged articles about them yet (the dreaded redlinks....). Carlossuarez46 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article will never be more than a list. Lists are okay, but only a list is not. No encyclopedic content. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain this? When is a list more than a list? - Che Nuevara 06:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, to be more than just a list it would need ecyclopedic content, and to arrange the information in a way a catagory cannot. Here are some encyclopedic lists: FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region, List of countries by Human Development Index, and Australian Olympic medalists in Swimming.
  - These articles provide structure to the list that a catagory cannot, and the unifying theme is broad enough to have encyclopedic headers to each of the sections. I don't see why this cannot be a catagory. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then why not make this a category? If the page doesn't work, a category could. Assuming we don't already have one, anyway. -Ryanbomber 15:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, this would be a fine catagory, not sure if it exists already though. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hyperbole. It's already a category, apparently, so this article is just a list, and we're not a bunch of lists. WMMartin 17:44, 5 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.