Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who are childless by choice for non-religious reasons

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who are childless by choice for non-religious reasons[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:NOTABLE. My two problems with this article are a) These people are not necessarily famous for not having children and b) There is no clear scope/inclusion criteria. Millions of people choose not to have children for non-religious reasons, but why specifically are the people on the list now there? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely per nom. There's no evidence that this particular group of people has been discussed as a group in reliable sources. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wanted to convert this to List of antinatalists per Category:Antinatalists that might work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't assume that they are antinatalists without reliable sources saying that for each of them. The fact that these particular people don't want to have children themselves (assuming that they don't) would not prove anything about their opinions about other people having children. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes and that is what I was trying to imply. It would be more than just a rename. There are 40 names in the category, though I have not checked their quality of sourcing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would seem to just be a completely different list with just some overlapping entries, so whether or not this should be deleted would have nothing to do with whether that should also be separately created. postdlf (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good point, in eyeballing the list and the category, there really is no overlap. It would have to start from scratch. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This seems arbitrary, perhaps over-specific, and not helpful to readers. I wouldn't necessarily object to an equivalent category, since that just adds structured information, but I can't see a use for the list and it doesn't seem completable. Only a 'weak' vote because some of the same objections would apply to other lists collecting people by personal characteristics, for example List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, which I wouldn't want to remove. Mortee (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the list you mentioned above, I also have an issue with the scope of that list. Taking WP:NOTABLE into consideration, I personally would only include notable individuals whose sexual orientation has been discussed as a group in reliable sources. Otherwise, anyone who identifies LGBTQ could be included on that list, but that would be excessive. As for this list, unless a person is famous for their antinatalist views, I cannot see why they should be included on the list. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"...whose sexual orientation has been discussed as a group"... I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. ANYhoo, such lists should be and are ordinarily limited to notable people, though lists are not limited to "why" people are "famous". You should focus on "no clear scope/inclusion criteria" as an argument, because that's certainly a valid concern for the list you nominated here. postdlf (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I essentially meant that the list should be limited to notable people. And you're right that my biggest issue with the list is the lack of scope/inclusion criteria. Apologies for the confusion. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 12:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Trivial way of listing people. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Necessarily involves speculation about religious motives and medical histories. Pure OR in that regard. Trivia. Carrite (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no conceivable inclusion criteria or threshold for this to make it substantive rather than trivial, equivocal, or circumstantial. Entries may run the gamut from people who are philosophically opposed to anyone having children to others who are basically "yeah, we're fine without them, who knows though, we may change our minds." Essentially trying to list people by their motive for maintaining a life status. postdlf (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2017 (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.