Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people born in 1990


 * 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--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

List of people born in 1990

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Every entry requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group (WP:NLIST). A "complete" list will contain over 13,000 entries which is unattainable and will leave the list incomplete. This "seemed like a good idea" without realistic scoping of the content. WWGB (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: This looks like it's redundant to Category:1990 births and I can't see where it would need any more information other than what's already written on the category page. Plus there's the fact that there are currently 13,162 articles in said category... Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete totally redundant and not giving a bad criteria in WP:LISTCRUFT. ApprenticeFan  work 10:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Lists cannot be redundant to categories, and potential size is an argument for splitting when the time comes, not deletion. But it does appear to be redundant to 1990, which AFAIK is the standard way of listing births by year. Are there any other standalone lists like this? postdlf (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 1990, which I forgot exists. In the future it might be a good idea to split the latter page.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The list at 1990 is good enough, and, combined with Category:1990 births, this article is rendered redundant, unnecessary, and, as was touched upon in the nomination, too expansive to be reasonably attainable. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 23:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to 1990 § Births, which presently does not have some of the entries in the list. This will improve the merge target article, per WP:PRESERVE. North America1000 01:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just delete it -- The category is automatically populated by adding a birth year category. The list in the year article is broken down by date of birth, thus adding data not provided by the category.  An alphabetic list of births, will need regular maintenance to prevent it lagging a long way behind the category.  A normal style merger is not a good idea because the content would need to be distributed by the actual birthdate to integrate it properly.  I am not saying that should not be done, but it will be a lot of work.  This article is a mere stub.  Its creator would be better employed doing that than expanding this article.  Most of the annual birth categories from 1946 to the early 1990s have over 10,000 articles; fewer thousands before and after.  In all cases this is too many for a useful list article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The category for 1990 births already has over 13,000 entries, and very few people born that year are yet notable in academics, politics or business, and many more born that year will probably become notable in the creative arts. So we have no reason to think we are anywhere near maxing out the potential size of this indiscriminate list, even if it can be limited to people who have articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as the other list is larger unlike this one. SwisterTwister   talk  07:04, 24 April 2016 (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.