Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bodyguards


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

List of bodyguards

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has no hope of being encyclopedic. At one extreme, it could be a non-exhaustive list of bodyguards notable in popular culture or literature--this would be extremely subjective and uninteresting. At the other extreme, it could be a directory of all bodyguards who have some indicia of notability (invariably, the tendency would for non-notable bodyguards of notable individuals to be included). In its current form (as in all imaginable forms), it is a hodgepodge of trivia, not suited for an encyclopedia. Bongo matic  00:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. JuJube (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It needs work, but it could turn out to be a useful and interesting article. It's not much different from other occupation-based lists such as List of chefs or List of physicians. To start with, I'd advise splitting the article into sections for real bodyguards and fictional characters and removing the non-notable entries. But there are plenty of notable bodyguards with their own articles on this list - no reason to delete.  Graymornings (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think the list should be limited to those with WP articles, then a category would do the job (and better). Bongo  matic  01:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lists should be limited to notable members of such lists. WP:SAL "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." Those reasonably expected articles are one reason why lists are useful. Another reason is mentioned by Mgm below. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   --    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 01:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This seems like a clear case of not directory. Let your fingers do the walking... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We have clear guidelines on lists WP:CLN. Lists and directories are two entirely different things. - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This article seems to me to be a directory. We could have articles on veterinarians in New Jersey, and electricians in California, and paper companies, but those are all subjects that seem to be directory related rather than encyclopedic. An article on body guards would be fine. A list of the types of bodyguard companies (if there were sources for such a thing) would be okay. But a list of bodyguards? I don't think so. Why isn't there a list of dog trainers? Massage therapists? Dog walkers? But I've been wrong before... ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We do have a list of veterinarians, though I don't know if any of them are in New Jersey. In addition, Dog trainer mentions three notable dog trainers. DHowell (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Per having other lists of things. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Obviously un-encyclopedic. Ledenierhomme (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is no different from other accepted "list of " lists (No, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't apply, because the other lists are accepted - in other words, not crap) and it's sorted by both background and nation. Categories can't do that without becoming too small, making this a viable list target. - Mgm|(talk) 09:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is totally different from other such lists. I just started by typing "list of a" into the search box and got List of action film actors and List of action film directors. Those are simple lists of wikilinks to articles. If you think this article should be pared down to a list of actual people (not fictional characters, or owners of security companies, or security consultants who don't have the word "bodyguard" in their WP bio) without the editorializing or list of non-notable bodyguards of notable people, I would have no objection except that it would be a short (and not notable) list. There is no List of actuaries. Bongo  matic  09:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The list can always be renamed to something like List of security personnel or something more suitable if this particular naming doesn't float your boat. - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - encyclopaedic list, useful for information content and navigation. If you're looking for cleanup, you've come to the wrong place. Wily D  14:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * delete wikipedia isn't a directory, is supposed to encyclopedic, and encyclopedias shouldn't carry ill-defined and amorphous lists.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep-Politically notable and I'd like to see such executive protection topics linked up under the umbrella of a "Wikipedia Project Private Security/Private Military" which chronicles the efforts of the wealthy and politically powerful to try to use their fortunes to pay these highly trained commando-jockeys to protect themselves from the unwashed masses.Critical Chris (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic and has no research value. Tavix (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete bodyguards, members of security details, and on and on with no definable limit nor purpose, should someone cut and paste all members of the SS, SA, and others whom have later been termed Hitler's bodyguards? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If they are notable for their role as Hitler's bodyguard, why shouldn't they be included? Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This imo is non-encyclopedic thus should be deleted afkatk (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with the understanding that this is to be a list of real-world bodyguard, and that fictional figures would go in a separate list. I wasn't sure from the title there would be enough notable people to make a useful list, but I see from the article there are. This violates none of the list guidelines- DGG (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list appears to be limited to notable bodyguards, as per the guideline for stand-alone lists of people. This is not an indiscriminate directory, but a list of notable people in a notable profession. Believing that "a category would do the job (and better)" is not a reason to delete a list; see WP:CLN. This list serves all three of the purposes of lists in Wikipedia: information, navigation, and development. DHowell (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems like a regular member of Category:Lists of people by occupation. Although not all bodyguards are notable, there are enough notable members to make a standalone list worthwhile. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2009 (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.