Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Assyriologists


 * 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

List of Assyriologists

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails notability WP:NLIST. List subject is not notable. Furthermore this is unmaintainable: no way to identify all the Assyriologists in the world. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Goal may be better served by having an Assyriologist category and tagging relevant wiki entries with that tag. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the nomination. How does it fail WP:NLIST? Are you saying that Assyriology is not notable? Or that Assyriologists are not discussed as a group? Both seem patently false. As for "maintainable", I don't see how it would be any harder to list all the notable Assyriologists in the world than any other occupation in Category:Lists of people by occupation. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Invalid deletion rationale misses the point of Wikipedia lists. A list such as this one should have only bluelinked entries, but this one does. It would be possible to include a little more about each entry (dates, nationalities, and specializations, within a single line of text, say) to keep this from being completely redundant with a category. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * At minimum delete all unsourced entries, as they fail WP:V. I'm not convinced that this list meets WP:LISTN either, just because these people are individually notable, does not mean that they have been discussed together as a group. Furthermore, I generally think that most lists are not worth keeping on Wikipedia due to lack of maintenance and scope issues. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked the first half of the list before giving up and none of the linked articles are unsourced. Do you mean that the list entries don't have inline citations? We almost never do that in lists. The inclusion of individual entries are verified by clicking through to the linked article and looking at its references section. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like a list to me! Blue links all round... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, a worthy subject and a valid list of bluelinked people within the sharply-defined group. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia articles need sourcing. Specically sourcing that shows that the topic as a group is notable. We have no such sourcing here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * John, you just click on the blue linky things and every.single.one takes you to a distinguished Assyriologist. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I was going to say exactly that. Calling the list unsourced is extremely misleading. There may be exceptions, but all of the links I've followed are perfectly well sourced.  Athel cb (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Any general history of Assyriology is going to discuss the Assyriologists of the past and their influence (see the index here (1) for a start). This is the definition of a notable list. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a valuable list. All the entries are blue-linked. That's not to say it can't be improved. I'd like to see birth and death dates, nationality, and a brief indication of why the person is notable. For example, for the first entry one could write "Arthur Amiaud (1849–1889) French Assyriologist and philologist known for research on Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions". For that example only, I have done that in the list. Ideally it should be done throughout, by someone expert in Assyriology (which I am not). However, that's probably not going to happen, and the linked articles provide the information needed. If commenters here think it's a good idea I may do it.  Athel cb (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * After writing that I saw that 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 has been working hard on the list since I last saw it, adding at least some of the information that I wanted to see (dates, nationality), but I still think a few words on notability would help.  Athel cb (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran, Iraq, Syria,  and Turkey. –LaundryPizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 20:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Acceptable list for the article Assyriology. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 20:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep We better keep this kind of lists. In some cases it's really helpful. --Evilfreethinker (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we're going to have lists of people at all, this seems an obvious keeper. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Assyriology is an archaeological speciality. As a list this does not need references: the references will be in the articles listed.  It does not need regular maintenance.  It is more useful than a category, because there is scope for a sentence or two on the person's career.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.