Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest divorce settlements


 * 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. The "delete" side fails to adequately explain how this list's scope is unclear. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

List of largest divorce settlements

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Very poorly defined and subjective list. What makes a divorce settlement "large"? Money? The circumstances around it? The fact that those involved are celebrities? At what threshold does a settlement go from "largest" to just "really big"? I don't know and this list makes absolutely no attempt to explain. It might be worth listing a few noteworthy cases of abnormally large settlements in an article like Divorce, Alimony, or even an entirely new article, but this list is the wrong way to go about that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By that measure List of tallest buildings in the world is subjective. Yet there is. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, it should be noted that this article was recently deleted through the WP:PROD process, but this was overturned after deletion when the article creator listed it at DRV. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Speedy delete—firstly, I entirely agree with that the topic is poorly-defined and nebulous, and I tend to think that it falls under WP:NOT. Secondly, the article should have been deleted due to the fact that it was PROD-ed appropriately for seven days. It was only re-instated due to the creator's apparent misunderstanding of Wikipedia's deletion policies. ╟─ Treasury  Tag ►  stannator  ─╢ 12:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "The article's creator or other significant contributors should ideally be left a message at their talk page(s) informing them of the proposed article deletion." Backdoor deletions are fun, but don't make a good reference work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a speedy candidate Secret account 21:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete poorly defined, Sadads (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 *  Weak k Keep Great job on this, much better after less than a weak.  The objections here seem to be the title and the lack of context.  In a table where the data is listed under U.S. dollar amount, it's not too hard to figure out that, in this case, the answer to " What makes a divorce settlement 'large'?" is (a) rather than (b) or (c).  Money can be objectively measured, while circumstances and celebrity can't, and so long as the amounts are sourced to reliable and verifiable sources, no problem.  Only a "weak" keep, because it appears that this project stopped at two divorce settlements, one of which was for $750,000,000 (hint: it involves a golfer whose nickname is "Tiger") and one of $123,000,000.  Maybe, now that the larger community is aware of the article's existence, it'll move beyond two, in which case people can discuss on the talk page what boundaries they want to set for this in order to avoid concerns that it will include Cousin Joey getting the '92 Dodge and his wife getting the '97 Toyota and the trailer.  Mandsford 14:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a topic that many people are interested in. I don't see a problem with WP having a list on it. Of course reliable sources need to provide the info on each. For practical purposes a bottom limit should be set, as Mandsford mentioned. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep well defined, well sourced. By invoking WP:NOT we wouldn't be able to have any tables in Wikipedia such as GDP and GNP and other metrics we use to rank countries. We rank things all the time, as any reference work does, tallest buildings, best selling songs, oldest living people, highest grossing movies, most populous countries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Those lists are different, as they define notability, a list of largest divorce settlements doesn't define any notability at all, other than reaching the news. Secret account 21:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not following that logic. We only know of any new information when it reaches one of the reliable media. We aren't born knowing which buildings are larger than others, or which country has a larger GDP than another. How is this topic different? "Reaching the news" is the definition of notability, it is when the media take "notice" of the event. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT and WP:NOT, it's not well-defined with only two entries on it, even if it has 100 entries WP:NOT still applies, as the subjects aren't notable because of a divorce but something else. Secret account 21:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not following that logic at all, can you rephrase that? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is encyclopedic and well defined. While the article is a stub now, there are appropriate reliable and verifiable sources and no reason not to anticipate further expansion for this article. Alansohn (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – this list (which is not much of one) looks like a POV-fork aimed negatively at living people. That is what distinguishes this from the List of tallest buildings. I also happen to weakly agree that this topic is rather poorly-defined as the nom explained. –MuZemike 22:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it tends to appeal to less elevated aspects of human nature. But I don't think that's much of a consideration with WP, in contrast to most traditional encyclopedias. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that the title is a bit vague. But this is an absolutely valid subject and I don't see the problem. It should be improved and expanded, not deleted.— Chris! c / t 22:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is far from perfect at the minute, but the subject matter is verifiable and notable. It could perhaps be refined and a rename might help and it certainly needs improvement, but not deletion. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep assuming that "largest" is defined in terms of most money, and assuming that the divorces listed in this table are notable. Not simply that the people involved in the divorce are notable, but that the divorce event itself is notable per WP:GNG.    Snotty Wong   babble 23:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * comment- not sure how to do it, or I'd do it myself, but for whatever reason, the AFD template is not on the page, so someone want to place that on there. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. More cunting original research.  Wikipedia is not a collexion of slapped together lists dreamt up in school on tuesday afternoon, as it were.  Bollocks. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia says: "original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." Since each fact comes from a published source, some from multiple sources, how exactly would that be OR? And what makes it "cunting", is that when a fact smells fishy? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a confirmed Torkmann sockpuppet. Need I say any more?  To you? Uncle G (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of other Wikipedia lists of this type (see Lists of most expensive items) seem to already exist.  Barkeep   Chat 17:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note List of largest divorce settlements is now a redirect to List of most expensive divorces.— Chris! c / t 18:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's probably not something that should have been done while this AFD was pending, because it changed the scope of the list. While the list first specified divorce "settlements", removing that qualifier leaves it open to divorce judgments, i.e. those imposed by a court rather than agreed to by the parties.  Maybe the broader list is better, but the distinction is still an important one, and if the list is to be kept broad it should annotate how each divorce was resolved even if it doesn't maintain separate groupings.  postdlf (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article could be renamed to List of most expensive divorce settlements if necessary.— Chris! c / t 19:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, I was just focusing on the dropping of the word "settlements". "Most expensive" is better than "largest."  postdlf (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep only real issue is how large does it need to be to be "among" the largest? Rest of the OR arguments for deletion I don't see.  The other can be fixed by editing, or potentially, a rename (above a certain amount or top 20 or something). Even if not fixed I think reasonable judgment is acceptable here. Hobit (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep But, I would like to see more WP:RS regarding all the examples listed, and a clearer definition of the criteria used for adding divorces to the list. As for complaints about the title of the article - did anyone fail to appreciate what the article was going to be about? The title was pretty self-explanatory. BlueRobe (talk) 08:07, 20 September 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.