Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important and famous Baby Boomers


 * 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. --Core desat 05:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

List of important and famous Baby Boomers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I am nominating this list for deletion because it seems to me that the criteria for inclusion are sufficiently broad that the list's contents cannot be effectively constrained. It's better served by the existing categories for birth year. If this list is deleted, I'll also see about removing a similar list from the page on Baby Boomers FrozenPurpleCube 05:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, mindblowingly indiscriminate list that could potentially run to a hundred thousand entries. Horribly America-centric as well.-- Nydas (Talk) 07:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Categories like Category:1946 births handle this pretty well. Nydas also makes a good point, and I have really serious concerns about vague terms like "important and famous" in article titles. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete While I would say "famous" might be arguable, "important" is completely indescriminate and subjective, tainting the entire list. -Markeer 13:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, pointless list. NawlinWiki 13:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. "Important" and "famous" are pretty loaded terms to have in a title.  If we distill it down to something more neutral like "notable" then this just turns into a List of baby boomers, as any baby boomers on Wikipedia should be notable per WP:BIO.  And listing people by what era they were born in is rather WP:NOT.   Ar ky an  &#149; (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree that the birth year categories handle this much better. JavaTenor 18:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly anyone in this encyclopaedia would already be famous and/or important, and then we still have years of birth categories.... Clearly redundant Thethinredline 19:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete list of arbitrary scope.-- danntm T C 01:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV title, unmanageable and redundant list. We already have birth year categories. — JyriL talk 23:21, 17 April 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.