Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of People who have had a Vasectomy


 * 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 23:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

List of People who have had a Vasectomy

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Essentially meaningless, given that this is a routine procedure; do we have a list for appendectomies and tonsil removal? JNW (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable, not encyclopedic, can never be comprehensive and even if an individual on the list is notable themselves that they've had a vasectomy is not notable. QU TalkQu 21:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apart from obvious questions of notability and verifiability, this looks like a magnet for vandals. Already, of the 4 people listed, one is a cartoon character. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic in nature.  Not all sources are reliable.  Posting names of people who have had surgical procedures and their contraceptive choices borders on privacy concerns of live people (even with reliable sources.jsfouche (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-encyclopedia-worthy topic, poorly executed to boot. Carrite (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Snip this one in the bud.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I recognize that it was a trial, but I don't have too much faith in a mess of a list where the four names are Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith, Jon Gosselin, John Phillip Key, and cartoon character Peter Griffin.  Though this one was badly executed, I think that the topic itself is encyclopedic.  I don't see the privacy issue at all.  Nobody knows whether a man has had a vasectomy unless he reveals that he elected to do so, and there's usually a reason why a guy decides to tell that to a reporter or biographer.  In the case of Prime Minister Key, it was to encourage other men to make such a choice.  Beckwith apparently was revealing that the Lincoln line had reached an end.  I suspect that Gosselin decided that "Jon and Kate plus nine" didn't sound like a good idea.   Mandsford 12:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is the type of stuff that gives Lists a bad reputation. Next thing we'll see is a List of people who should have had a Vasectomy. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That one would actually be quite fun to contribute to ;-) QU TalkQu 21:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that be a List of people who's father should have had a Vasectomy. ;-)
 * Being serious for a minute, as a newbie, I'm not entirely sure where Wikipedia policy on lists is defined. There seem to be a lot of fairly pointless ones about. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
 * (Perhaps in the meantime I'll start compiling a List of things that shouldn't be listed on Wikipedia) :-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A good place to start is WP:IINFO, which is part of WP:NOT, and WP:CLN which stresses that lists can be a useful navigation aid. I think that this one broke several rules of how not to set up an article; to the author's credit, there was a good faith attempt to cite to a source for each item on the list, a rare quality in a Wikipedia page.  Some people hate lists and think that they're frivolous.  The other extreme is people who love their information in a convenient, ready-to-eat form, without considering whether there's a need for a list of such-and-suches.  Lists are often a better way to present information than feeble attempts at prose.  Mandsford 23:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for that - I did a bit of searching myself, and lists are a more complex subject than they look - or at least, useful ones are. Though this list arguably might be useful to somebody, I'm still inclined to suggest it is likely to generate more heat than light. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic, and a future BLP vandal magnet. First Light (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete theres more letters than there are names, and im sure there are a lot of unnotable people who have had a Vasectomy. Longevitydude (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Very strong delete This page is to vandals as fish is to water. Very unencyclopedic and potentially embarrassing. Brendan  ( talk,  contribs ) 04:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted, I can't see keeping the article as is, but there's nothing embarrassing about a vasectomy, a reversible elective procedure. I imagine that the people who would vandalize such a page are dumbasses who confuse it with castration.  The title of this page isn't much better, in that it is a "list of people" that is, by definition, confined to men.  Women don't have a vas deferens.  This probably doesn't merit a separate page, any more so than a list of women who have had their "tubes tied".  Mandsford 15:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Verifiability is a difficult problem with a list of this nature. Racepacket (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment My proposal for deletion was rather brief, and subsequent rationale for deletion has been more eloquent. I'd add to, or rephrase, what others have said: This isn't a list that promises to be supported by scholarship, but would likely become, even with the best of intentions, a pastiche of original research, and worse, gossip. JNW (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2010 (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.