Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable people of Oakville, Ontario


 * 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. - Bobet 11:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

List of notable people of Oakville, Ontario
This article was split off from Oakville, Ontario as it was an ever increasing list taking over the article. I was the editor who made the split and created the article, but the entries have been added over time during its original incarnation in the main article so I was not sure that a speedy delete was appropriate and tagged it with a PROD. There is already a Category:People from Oakville, Ontario, and I've updated articles with tags to match them up. Considering this list duplicates the category, this list should be deleted. The original PROD was contested, so I've taken this to AFD for discussion. -- Whpq 11:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wickethewok 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge back in to Oakville, Ontario. Most city articles have a list of notable residents. BoojiBoy 14:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the Oakville, Ontario article currently contains a refernce to Category:People from Oakville, Ontario, but if the list is to remain, then it should stand as a separate article with a reference from the main article, as the list starts to dominate the article. -- Whpq 14:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:LIST. Nominator presents no real argument for deletion. WilyD 14:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - the reason is its duplication with an existing category. Double maintenance. -- Whpq 14:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Lists and categories do not serve the same function, especially in cases like this. No duplication means no reason presented for deletion. WilyD 15:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, guessing games suck, let people choose what they want to read. Kappa 15:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There aren't that many names in this article or the category and it is not an unusually significant city. True we have similar situations with things like List of people from Portland, Maine, but most of those end up for review. Lists can provide added information in what their relationship is to the topic, but I don't think that would be too important here.--T. Anthony 01:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Residents and former residents is a common theme in city articles - for better or for worse, deleting this serves no purpose other than to mess up to Oakville article. WilyD 14:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep due to the fact that similar lists such as List of people from San Francisco have been kept after going through the AFD process. --Edgelord 14:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep because the list actually is better than the category because it includes the reason people are notable, not just their names, the way the category mainly would. GRBerry 18:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Lists like these are really just categories in article clothing. The article on the person should say why the person is notable, so a list with a notation is really unnecessary. Further, given the mobility of people, not just now but in previous decades, there's really no value in these kind of lists because the people on these lists can be "from" many, many places. Agent 86 18:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:LIST to find out why this argument is wrong. Lists serve a function that categories and consitutant articles do not - especially good lists. WilyD 03:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Read it before I posted this. LIST is a guideline, not gospel. I do not think that this is a good list or that my argument is "wrong". Agent 86 16:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * List is a guideline, but it does explain the difference between lists and categories, and rather than rehash it here, it's easier to point you to a place where the explanation is already eloquently explained. This is not really a "good list" in the sense that it couldn't make "good list" status, but we don't delete articles because they're not yet up to good article status - it doesn't make sense to hold lists to a higher standard.  Given the facts of the case, your argument remains wrong. WilyD 21:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I understood you to be using "good list" in the vernacular and not WP sense, and responded using the same sense of the phrase (and please don't construe it that I'm saying the quality of an article is a basis for deletion, because it's not). That said, I happen to disagree with you, and stand by my opinion on this matter. Agent 86 22:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I more or less, but I played a bit with the phrasing to suggest that your standards for the article are too high. WilyD 12:54, 28 August 2006 (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.