Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breast reduction recipients (2nd nomination)


 * 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 The argument, supported by most commenters, that this list represents a trivial intersection is convincing. With sourcing, the information could be placed in each individual's article, whereupon it might be appropriate for a cat. Present community consensus is that the information does not belong as a list. Xoloz 15:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

List of breast reduction recipients
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Surely this is just as indiscriminate as List of people with breast implants where it was deleted at Articles for deletion/List of people with breast implants (2nd nomination). If these women are notable for making their breasts smaller, it should simply be mentioned in their article. Spellcast 02:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Such a list should only include people who are notable because they made their breasts smaller, not people who are notable and just happen to have also reduced their breast size. As it stands, breast reduction is not so notable a subject as to warrant a list, as while it may seem interesting to some, it's a trivial compilation of information. Calgary 03:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Calgary. Trivial intersection. Resolute 03:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, Merge, or Morph This might make a good category, rather than a list (although I would certainly not want to fight that one either way). Alternatively it could be a sub-section of Breast reduction (although then it might be deleted per WP:TRIVIA). Tricky. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 04:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, trivial intersection of data. Axem Titanium 04:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I see no reason to keep articles which list people by surgeries they've had, as it'd be a list of loosely associated items Corpx 05:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this seems like a trivial intersection. Why is knowing who had breast reductions important, or encyclopedic?  Why is this an important or notable attribute of a person?  What does this say about the people's commonality -- besides "very little".  --Haemo 05:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. I'm surprised this was kept last time around. Otto4711 13:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. "I'm surprised this was kept last time around."  That's what can happen when a ring of deletionists aren't notified of the NfD in advance and valid arguments for keep are presented. David Hain 07:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, people who respond with incivility and fail to assume good faith sure aren't very nice. Otto4711 15:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "very nice" Making double-veiled personal attacks is cowardly behavior. (And I don't need to cite rules or post a masked link [cowardly] to some off-site decidedly uncivil essay to validate this statement.) David Hain 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge As with breast implants, this a certain type of elective surgery that merits its own article. I think I voted to keep the former, but the right thing to do there would be to merge as well.  Does it matter which actresses underwent a particular type of surgery, such as a facelift or a nose job?  Arguably, it does, to the person who is thinking about a certain procedure.  Plastic surgery is common enough, and sufficiently risk-laden, that it's worthwhile to know about the experiences of others.  Mandsford 14:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Information should be added to individuals' articles on a case-by-case basis (hopefully better sourced than just the IMDB) but a list article of who's had what surgery is unenecylopedic. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Non-arguments.  When such information is added to individual articles it's quickly removed, as was done with the Drew Barrymore article.  To say that this list is sourced by IMDb is falsehood; all the linked IMDb pages quote published sources.  "Unencyclopedic" has been so overused by lazy deletionists it's become meaningless. David Hain 07:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was removed by an anon on the Drew Barrymore page without explanation, so you can reinsert it. Spellcast 15:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The nom is groundless.  Indiscriminate my arse -- this subject is more noteworthy than much of what's on Wikipedia.  When a celebrity announces she's had a breast reduction, or even when there's the slightest speculation she's had the surgery, it's all over every newsstand and tv talk show in the western world.  So if people are so hungry for this information, why can't Wikipedia provide it in a straightforward, reasonably accurate manner? David Hain 07:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't how much coverage this gets, it's how encylopedic this is. I'm sure these deleted articles got a lot of media coverage, but were still unencylopedic: Celebrity feud and Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump Controversy. The info belongs in the main biography. These celebrities are notable for the work they have accomplished in television/film and not because they decided to have their breasts reduced. So it's a trivial intersection to categorise them like this. Spellcast 15:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete more suited in a cat.--JForget 00:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This isn't about notable women in general who have had the surgery, but apparently about those in the entertainment field in one way or another where it has either been widely public knowledge or in some way relevant to their career. Possibly the article would do better if this were spelled out, and even retitled. DGG (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with breast reduction. hmwith  talk  22:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Verifiable and sourced, not an indiscriminate list, but a list with a clear criterion for inclusion. "Unencyclopedic" is increasingly becoming a substitute argument for "I don't like it." The sourcing could be better, and the list might be organized in a more interesting manner, but this is perfectly valid list. Dekkappai 00:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But these people are not primarily notable for reducing their breasts. So it's a trivial intersection. These are notable people who just happened to have breast reduction surgery. Spellcast 05:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleteas per nom.Harlowraman 02:23, 26 August 2007 (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.