Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous people described as anglophiles

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. Sandstein 23:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous people described as anglophiles[edit]

List of very very loosely associated people. It is also mainly original research and although authors should be commended for their effort to give proper references, the fact remains that one article labeling someone as an anglophile is not meaningful. Moreover, "anglophile" is a rather vague term and browsing through the references makes it quite clear that it has distinct connotations when applied to Nelson Mandela or to Madonna. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete more pointless than most lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Clayworth (talk • contribs)

Though I obviously agree that the list should be deleted, your comment is a bit too harsh. As far as I understand, the list was created as a spin-off of the anglophile article and is the result of a good-faith effort to clean things up. But as is often the case for the list spin-offs, the creation of the separate list makes it painfully obvious that it should simply have been deleted from the original article: it provides little added value beyond trivia and in particular it doesn't significantly increase the readers' understanding of the topic. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per User:Pascal.Tesson --T-rex 16:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge We have already have a start at sourcing and some further cleanup should be tried before rushing to judgement. At worst, one would then merge back into Anglophile. Deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point I tried to make above is that the fact that the content is properly sourced does not resolve the bigger problem which is that the list is a useless addition to an encyclopedic article. It's a random list (countless people have at some point or another been described as "anglophiles"), it doesn't discriminate between people whose "anglophilia" is/was a very significant aspect of their life (e.g. Guy Mollet) and people whose anglophilia is no more significant than their favorite ice-cream flavor, it's a list of famous people and course "famous", like "anglophile", is a nebulous concept, the list does not provide insight into the concept of "anglophile", the list a priori includes anyone who's been labeled once as an anglophile, no matter how accurate that judgment may be, etc. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or No Merge per Pascal.Tesson - Francis Tyers · 16:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft. I agree with Clayworth. Axl (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing exists describing how 'labeling someone as an anglophile' is significant. Very few limits exist on the bounds of this list (although it is not as bad as some list). It is, as the nominator has said, bound to subjective judgments on a subjective notion. Protonk (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pascal.Tesson. Eklipse (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2008 (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.