Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lifestyles (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.  Singu larity  18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

List of lifestyles (2nd nomination)
Deleted before and re-created. Still unreferenced. What's a lifestyle? Not encyclopedic in the slightest Bricksense1987 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: There didn't appear to be any consensus on the first discussion (Articles for deletion/List of lifestyles), and it was not deleted as a result, so this is not a recreation. It does need work, though.   Corvus cornix  talk  22:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Understand WP:CLS. Lists like categories and templates don't necessarily have to be referenced. SunCreator (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: There is no real common thread linking these together. Furthermore it is in fact impossible to make a list of all lifestyles. One would be better off listing specific categories of lifestyle separately--and even that seems sketchy. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete THis is a list of loosely associated topics if I ever saw one. A lifestyle simply refers to a way of life. Because people can and do live their lives based around literally any idea, doctrine, activity, philosophy or hobby, the list is potentially endless. Also, because the potential number of lifestyles is so incredibly broad, the subjects have virtually no other connection to each other whatsoever. Calgary (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. It's difficult to imagine a more indiscriminate list than this one (well, List of things, maybe). Deor (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:BEANS. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as impossibly broad in scope. Virtually any activity or philosophy from rail transport modeling to conservatism to corsetry could plausibly be included. -Sean Curtin (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as an indiscriminate list, as discuessed by Calgary.  B figura  (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as not only indiscriminate, but unsalvageably so. And where's the "s&m lifestyle" included?  JeanLatore (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indiscriminate collection of information. Does not fulfill any purpose that is not already better served by categories. Nick Graves (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no way in g*d's green earth could this ever be complete and it's so loosely connected that it's almost meaningless. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 04:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * NOTE. According to Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove, the nominator is a confirmed sock of User:Storyrates1987.  Moreover, based on contribs, the nominator seems to be making rapid and pointed anti-list AfDs (ALL other noms by the account are speedy/snow keeps).  Thus, perhaps we should speedy close as consensus is usually that we do not humor bad faith noms by sock accounts?  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 07:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SK. This is not a candidate for speedy close. Deor (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Should the nom itself be struck then and only the discussion kept per ? Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per above – indiscriminate, un-complete-able, loosely connected, etc. While I'm occasionally a big fan of process, there's absolutely no reason to speedy close a debate that's almost unanimously delete just because the nom's a confirmed sock.  It will just delay the inevitable, since if it were to be speedy closed, someone else would just come along and nominate it tomorrow, and we'd all come back and !vote again. --  K é iryn  talk 08:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Scholars seem to have no trouble understanding what is meant by lifestyle since they use the concept frequently. It is especially used and defined in a medical context:  This research indicates that it is possible to identify a discrete number of health lifestyles in a population sample of U.S. adults. . Colonel Warden (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Scholars talk about lifestyle (as in a person's habits, especially those that might influence health), but not lifestyles as appears to be meant by this list. What do Breatharianism, Child soldier, Golf, and Piracy have in common?  Certainly nothing that scholars have shown any interest in. Klausness (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They talk about distinct lifestyles in many case such as the specific example I quoted. As usual, all that is needed is some sourcing to establish that the entries are recognised as lifestyles in some context - medicine, sociology, whatever.  The list could be subdivided by these fields of study as it develops.  It's sad to see the people don't get the idea that we don't do OR here but uses sources.  If we just base the list upon sources then the problems melt away. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they won't. It does not matter how well-researched a list like this is, it is still utterly, totally useless. If someone is interested in a particular lifestyle they can search for it themselves--there is no conceivable reason why anyone needs this list. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that it is WP:USELESS. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion, hence just a random collection of stuff. Klausness (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:LC points 3, 6 and 8. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete What constitutes a lifestyle? The word is used so widely and loosely that this list is virtually indiscriminate. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 02:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete might as well be List of adjectives that could be used to describe a person. -Drdisque (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2008 (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.