Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of beneficiaries of immigration/nationality-related United States Private Bills/Laws


 * 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   speedy keep. This is clearly just an editing dispute over what content belongs in this list, not a matter for AFD. This discussion should proceed on the list's talk page. postdlf (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

List of beneficiaries of immigration/nationality-related United States Private Bills/Laws

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: as article (list) creator, I have observed that following subsequent changes, the list does not provide the information or serve the purpose for which it was designed. Quis separabit? 15:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not 100% related to the deletion argument, but how on earth have so many "related" AfDs, none of which are relevant, gotten linked into here? Oo Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably because when the nominator created the AfD they gave it the heading of "laws" rather than the full title. Which caused every single AfD starting with "laws" to be linked in here. Altamel (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. postdlf (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @Postdlf. Quis separabit?  21:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Lists of notable persons with material in common do not automatically get deleted because the "creator" (owner?) seeks it to have purposes other than the clear statement of purpose inherent in its title - Wikipedia does not generally allow lists of non-notable living persons to be articles. Collect (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It does not say "notable" in the title; lists on Wikipedia of people killed by police officers and of police offers killed in the line of duty unavoidably contain non-linked/non-stand alone entries, as did this list. I am not claiming ownership as no one owns articles on Wikipedia, I am sorry to have to remind @Collect. As I am the only editor to compile or add to the list I can attest, however, IMHO, that the list has been stubbed down to near pointlessness, so it's really not in the interest of Wikipedia, its editors or the public to be maintained. Even sufficiently notable individuals, at least for purposes of listifying, given their connections to stand alone individuals such as Owney Madden and Elizabeth Taylor, are disputed. Aside from myself, only @Collect and @Edward321 touched the list and that was to remove 95% of it, claiming that any name which is not a stand alone article is non-notable or OR, despite sourcing. I am asking that the the list be deleted as it no longer reflects my vision. If those who claim to want to keep it by voting on this AFD really wish to do so, they are free to recompile a new list after this one has been deleted and name it whatever they choose. Quis separabit?  21:04, 4 December 2014 (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.