Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people known as the Sage

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. Geschichte (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of people known as the Sage[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)

This isn't a list of people called simply "the Sage", but rather "the Sage of [something or somewhere]", which seems to me to be too loose of a criterion. Next, we'd have to have "the Wizard of" Westwood, Menlo Park; "the Prince of" Tollywood, reggaeton, Punk; and so on. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain exactly why the "of" makes an important difference? cagliost (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete just not seeing "lists of people with common epithets." Mangoe (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we have many of these, see w:Category:Lists of people by epithet. cagliost (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're all terribly ideas. We need to start clean up somewhere. Mangoe (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so this is a ploy to delete everything in w:Category:Lists of people by epithet? cagliost (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a useful list, and tightly defined enough that it's reasonably short. We have many similar lists, see w:Category:Lists of people by epithet. I don't agree that the fact that they are sages of somewhere is an important difference. I don't agree with the slippery slope argument: we do not have lists for people known as the Wizard because there would only be one person on it (the Wizard of Westwood), but if there were more than one person on the list, it would be a useful list. cagliost (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You are mistaken in two respects. The other epithet lists are Lists of people known as the X, not the X of something. Also, I was giving as an example List of people known as the Wizard, not List of people known as the Wizard of Westwood, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you are claiming the "of" is an important difference, I just disagree. Could you explain why the "of" is an important difference? You say it is too loose a criterion, but that's not true. This list is well defined and not longer than List of people known as the Bald. If your complaint is that allowing this list means we'd have to allow other lists, that's begging the question. What is the problem? cagliost (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The slippery slope argument is a fallacy, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. cagliost (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2. We do have List of people considered father or mother of a field, but that term has a much higher profile. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF Dronebogus (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF cuts both ways. I think List of people known as the Wizard would be legitimate if it had more than one entry, but even if it somehow weren't, List of people known as the Sage would remain legitimate, just as List of people known as the Bald is legitimate. cagliost (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see the distinction between a historical epithet and something made up by some journalist or sports reporter? Also, it's "the Bald", period, not "the Bald of Peoria" or "the Bald of Kalamazoo". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 14:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply. The information is put in context and is referenced. The four numbered points at WP:INDISCRIMINATE do not apply. cagliost (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE, might as well have “list of people frequently referred to as smart”. Dronebogus (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it were well referenced, that would be fine, e.g. if there were some kings called Charles the Smart and Rodolfo the Smart. We don't have such a list because no such references exist. Unlike this list, which is well referenced. cagliost (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails our most important notability criterion for lists, which is that the list topic should be discussed in sources as a group. It is not sufficient that there are sources for each person being called a "sage" – there should be some sources that discuss that there is a group of people known by this term, or at least the concept of calling people by the epithet. --RL0919 (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2021 (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.