Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of occupations

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 July 27.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Courcelles (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of occupations[edit]

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

The subject matter of this list is far too broad for this kind of coverage to work. Lists of occupations within certain fields might, but an holistic effort is doomed to be both bloated and perpetually incomplete. bd2412 T 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTDIR.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failure of WP:NOTDIR. This list could never be complete. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Time to give this one a gold watch and retire it from service. Whatever purpose it might have had back in 2003, it's no better than a category. It is what it is, a list of articles from "accountant" to "zoologist". I think the original intent was to make a list of "professions", but it's been a sprawling and indiscriminate set of words. It started out boring and every contribution since then has been equally boring. Mandsford 02:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia space this is an index, part of Wikipedia's alternate navigation system. I think all indices should be moved to Wikipedia namespace, since they aren't articles or lists. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Deleting this article contradicts {{dynamic list}}, but the fact that it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE seems to hold more weight. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplication of category with no added value, unless one feels having a single list of all notable professions is a good alternative to the way the category has subcategories.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Our relevant policy makes it very clear that lists should not be deleted to promote categories instead. The list performs useful functions which the category cannot such as listing redlinks to assist article development. And, of course, it scarcely needs saying that the topic is highly notable as there are numerous surveys of occupations from many perspectives. We can enhance the list to include international standard codes such as ISCO-68 to again make the list more functional than the category. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, the list has no standards, provides no basis for determining what constitutes an "occupation", and contains several questionable examples of "occupations" (e.g., Master of ceremonies, Party leader and Queen mother). Were a list of ISCO definitions to be used as a standard, that would be a different list. Regarding redlinks, I have no great objection to moving this to project space as a place to list potential article topics. bd2412 T 20:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^express 20:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. SnottyWong ^express 20:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or make a main and sub-lists, such as List of occupations by occupation fields. Otherwise utterly unnecessary and WP:IINFO & WP:NOTDIR. Maashatra11 (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too broad in scope, per WP:SALAT, for a discriminate list to emerge from the subject. The WP:CLS argument doesn't hold water, as categories and lists have two separate purposes and while they may be complementary, they each have their own separate exclusive guidelines and their functions do not overlap entirely. This is a case where a category is ok and a list is not. Another viable option would be to carefully create sublists, each of a manageable scope that deals with a field notable for its job diversity. We could then use this as a place to link to the sublists. What we can't do is attempt to list every possible occupation on one page. Them From Space 04:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't a directory, its a list. It aids in navigation, linking to other Wikipedia articles, that have something in common. Dream Focus 08:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (see WP:SALAT). The only more general list I can think of is List of Wikipedia article names (please don't create that). We would be better served by a category. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of words? pablo 20:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of all conceivable entities? Reyk _YO! 08:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Lists of English words, List of places and List of minor planets. These have hundreds of thousands of entries and so have naturally been subdivided as they have grown. They are orders of magnitude greater in size and scope than the list which we consider here and so demonstrate that size does not matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but those three lists are actually navigational aids for other, discriminate, lists. Minor planets, for instance, have a regular and logical numbering scheme so that lists of them are capable of being complete, discriminate and useful. The List of places links to such undeniably useful articles as List of metropolitan areas by population and List of countries by area. Similarly for lists of English words. Did List of English words start its life as a haphazard collection of a few random words that came to someone's mind? Of course not. So your comparison is not really fitting, is it? Reyk _YO! 09:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of occupations are undeniably useful too because they are actually used by governments, the UN, economists and so on. If our list has yet to match their standards then this just shows that we have work to do. Deletion would obstruct this work and so would be disruptive contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can this list become a useful one by a process of gradual editing? Maybe, though I'm far from convinces. Would it be better to wipe the slate clean and start over? Indisputably yes. Reyk _YO! 09:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLS, Colonel Warden and Dream Focus. There is a popular misconception that lists and categories are mutually exclusive. WP:CLS empathically says that they are mutually reinforcing, not exclusive. To paraphrase ThemFromSpace above, this is a case where a category is OK and a list is too, per WP:AOAL. Also let us remember that lists are navigational aids. They are not articles like others. They are more akin to navboxes. A list is therefore a case in which usefulness, which is usually not an inclusion criteria, becomes essential. The list in question is a clear case of a useful list for browsing WP (see first criteria of WP:AOAL). --Cyclopia^talk 19:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination has nothing to do with this being duplicative of a category, and everything to do with this being an impossible list to maintain. It has no standards to determine what belongs and what does not. Should it include every medical specialty? Every area of legal specialization (corporate tax attorney; individual tax attorney; estate tax attorney)? Should it include headings like Queen mother and Party leader? How about gambler, grifter, street mime, and shoplifter? Sorcerer, ninja, pirate, pimp, wife beater? How can we know which of these are properly listed as "occupations"? bd2412 T 20:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  - The standard is obvious: if RS call it an occupation, it is an occupation. About the size arguments, it can become a general list that links to specialized lists. WP:SALAT is clear in this respect: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. For reference see Lists of people, which is made up of specific categorical lists. - So, we can organize this and create sub-lists to be linked. In any case, all of this is dealt with editing, and as such per our deletion policy it is not a reason to delete. --Cyclopia ^talk 11:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly-defined and unmanageable. pablo 20:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as Hellno2 ↓ and others have said, Lists of occupations would be useful as a logical navigational aid to more discriminate lists. pablo 10:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but split into smaller lists so as to be more manageable and more user-friendly for readers. This list is helpful for navigation to other articles, and should be improved. And keep in mind that if this article is to be split, or smaller articles are to be created dealing with individual subject matter, deleting it is not a good idea because the informatioin on the current page can be used to create the others. Hellno2 (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Poorly defined and completely unmanageable as Pablo says. Way too broad to be useful and serves no conceivable navigational purpose. Reyk _YO! 08:27, 25 July 2010 (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.