Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of kidney stone formers


 * 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   keep. No consensus reached on the separate question of whether to rename, but that's of course best taken up at the article Talk Page. j &#9883; e decker talk  17:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

List of kidney stone formers

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lists of disease victims are perhaps notable when it is a dominating factor in their lives, and yes, years ago kidney stones were a major problem. These days, not so much (not that I'm planning on having any, mind you). I think this could be better served by inclusion in the main article of particularly notable cases (e.g. Giovanni Gabrieli's death) than by a "every person whom I can get out of Google" list. In any case the name of the article is questionable. Mangoe (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;None of the criteria mentioned are a reason to delete; in fact the nominator suggests a merge rather than a delete. The members of the list are all notable individuals and the article is solidly cited; there are even papers and lists in published books of such things. We don't just maintain lists that are relevant to the present, and kidney stones were a significant historical impactor. The main kidney stone article is huge; too large to include such a list. In short, this is a nonsensical and highly dubious nomination. (P.S. the article was recently renamed without prior debate; it was previously called "Kidney stone formers".)&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My doubts concern the notability of the intersection. I accept that there are some cases which are notable enough to be mentioned in kidney stones. However, what we have here is those plus a dose of calculus (as it were) trivia plus a lot of celebrity gossip. There are extremely few people in this list for whom kidney stones has anything to do with why they are notable; indeed, the span of the list emphasizes how common the malady is (or was). Inclusion of everyone for whom we can find some documentation that they suffered from stones is too indiscriminate a category to justify an article. Perhaps you can suggest a better title which would justify a more limited scope for inclusion. Mangoe (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well we disagree. The notability has to do with the ailment being significantly life impacting for notable individuals. Even in the modern era where most people survive the condition, kidney stones can have a major impact. Kidney stones of some notables have even been sold at auction. Lists of notable kidney stone formers are virtually obligatory in all the literary texts I checked on the history of kidney stones; it seems very encyclopedic information to me.
 * Beyond that, the list as it stands now is fairly comprehensive. It's not that easy to find additional notables who have not been included here. Hence, it's fairly self-limiting.
 * As you agree this list has at least some members worth retaining, it might have been better to discuss this first on the article's talk page.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then you can suggest a better name for it? "Kidney stone formers" gives me a mixed picture of people molding uric acid lumps and high school students. Mangoe (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The name is accurate and fairly terse. List of reknowned individuals who have formed kidney stones and suffered much agony thereupon, seems a tad wordy.&mdash;RJH (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Have you even read the article and its talk page? This is the epitome of a Good Article - well-cited, worked up, edited well, with lots of information and images.  It's currently rated C-class.  There is no assertion that this is not notable, only that it's poorly titled.  Well, folks, send that discussion to WP:Requested moves, because AfD is not the place for that. For disclosure purposes, I have had kidney stones. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, I was skeptical until I actually saw the list. Mangoe's concerns that kidney stones have nothing to do with why the listed people are notable are really irrelevant and I think nonsensical.  Lists that this not only function as an index of people who have a shared biographical fact, regardless of whether that fact defines who they are, but in this case this list further serves to illustrate the experiences different people have had throughout history with a particular medical condition.  Notable individuals are included here not because their bout with this condition was why they are notable, but because notable people are the ones who have been written about.  I agree that the list's title is...odd, but I can't suggest a better one.  postdlf (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep.Well sourced, instructive and enjoyable. Racconish  Tk 15:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Notability and Lists, this list meets our notability guidelines perfectly. The operative condition here is that the List topic (ie. Kidney stone formers) has been discussed by reliable sources as a group.  Ref #7 (as I am sure others in the list) does just that.  Additionally, although I agree that Kidney stone formers is at best an unfamilar and confusing phase, it is indeed mainstream.  A quick google search returns a lot of hits on the phrase so a rename is not really necessary. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:09, 24 December 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.