Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Honorary Aldermen of Wolverhampton


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Honorary Aldermen of Wolverhampton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod. The grounds for removing the prod tag have to do with WP:CRYSTAL, that is, the author thinks that someday there will be biographies about the people receiving this honor. Delete without prejudice against recreation a generation from now when said biographies are actually published.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with OP. Delete until there are bios about these people. Buggie111 (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thinking at night is really hard, trust me, Postdlf. Yes, almost every organization/geographic location has awards, and most of them are not notable. I change my stance, delete. Period. Buggie111 (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Even if the people were notable, they would not be notable for being honorary aldermen. Entire thing is trivial.  Just about any government on any level awards honors. Nothing special about this one.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. WP:CRYSTAL has absolutely nothing to do with predicting the future content of Wikipedia; where did you get that strange idea? Nor do we condition the existence of lists on whether articles for the entries currently exist; what is relevant is whether the articles should exist (because lists of redlinks exist in part to aid in identifying missing article topics) and whether the organizing concept of the list is a fact that it is encyclopedic to index. Steve Dufour is thus the only commenter so far to present a relevant, valid argument. postdlf (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not saying anything about WP:CRYSTAL having to do with the future content of Wikipedia. Where did you get that idea? --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I took the author's comment to mean that there would eventually be Wikipedia biographical articles written about the entries, not that there will one day be biographies about these subjects written, printed, and sold in bookstores. If you took him to mean the latter (which I guess is possible, though I think not the most likely interpretation), that's essentially the claim that some day these honorary alderman will satisfy WP:GNG even though they don't now, so see instead WP:TOOSOON. CRYSTAL still wouldn't apply because we're not talking about speculative assertions within the article itself. postdlf (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Either way, the prod was contested on invalid grounds: the principle of WP:NOTINHERITED could be invoked to say that any notability an individual may have does not confer any notability to an award or honor that individual might have won. We won't start an article about some little-league highest-scorer trophy just because Wayne Gretzky won it once before joining the National Hockey League. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no invalid grounds for contesting a prod, nor is there even a requirement to give grounds. All of this distraction is a shame because I think there are good reasons for deletion here, but the signal to noise ratio is off because of all the policy/guideline misinterpretation. postdlf (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ..."invalid" as in "not gonna hold up at AfD." Do we understand each other now? --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What holds up or not at AFD is irrelevant to whether a PROD can be removed. I think it's relevant to note that PROD was attempted at a subsequent AFD because many editors would like AFD to be used as a last resort, but beyond that it just seems like you're trying to put words in the mouth of someone who isn't even participating here and to no effect because the content is what it is and why a PROD was removed doesn't matter. Which meaning of "biography" did you intend, btw, in regard to your CRYSTAL rationale? postdlf (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete but not per nom; fails WP:LISTPURP as apparently none of the entries are notable so this can't be justified as a navigational index, nor is the award notable so this also fails WP:LISTN. postdlf (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete not a notable position, so a list of people holding it is not appropriate for an article.  In any case, there;'s no reason to argue over removing a prod--prod is just a shortcut to AfD for those cases where  there is no objection. When there is, that's when we come here.  DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.