Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people from Northumberland by occupation


 * 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. Tiptoety talk 23:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

List of people from Northumberland by occupation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Indiscriminate list. Scope is too wide. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I created the list. The main list is Category:People from Northumberland (i.e. born or raised there) which is just a long list of names. I wanted to break that list down - which is why I started this. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Weak Keep Some of the persons have no recognition of their stay in Northumberland, and it has no verifiability by an sources. Renaissancee (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be me misunderstanding what a list is meant to be. I had/have no intention of providing sources for any of the entries. What I wanted to do was make Category:People from Northumberland more helpful i.e. by grouping them by occupation. Note that the list includes all those in the sub categories of People from NBL. Or is there a better way of doing it? p.s. categories won't work - I started with 'Northumberland footballers' and that was immediately Afd'd Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no doubt if you apply the rigorous rule of verifying each entry you will find that the list becomes much shorter and manageable. Material in the encylopedia must be verifiable. I also notice that most of the occupations have one or just a few entries and are quite obscure, it's not really helpful. You might try to think in terms of categories.  Doesn't seem that big anyway. Drawn Some (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please also delete list of people from Texas which has an even wider scope. Qwarp (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this can be written in order to make it just as informative as list of people from Texas, but the progress on it was halted. When you nominate something 12 minutes after its put up (8:30 and 8:42 on 30 April 2009), you're assuming that there is no prospect of an improvement.  "Indiscriminate" is one of the more fixable problems in Wikipedia, and although this isn't quite indiscriminate, it still has room for more explanation of the significance of each of the persons.  A nomination that quick should occur only if the topic itself appears to be inappropriate, not because of deficiencies in content.  As a general rule, I usually construct an article in userspace before I post it, in order to avoid that problem.  However, there is nothing wrong with posting an article and then improving it within a reasonable time.  If there are no improvements made, nominate it again in a couple of months.  Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Changed to keep. The problem is the subdivisions on the page are too specific and it renders the list useless.  Texas has a population about 75 times that of Northumberland and it has far fewer subdivisions, my suggestion is to look at the Texas list and other similar lists and use similar subdivisions so that each section has more than 1 or a few members. Drawn Some (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly reasonable list, and obviously neither indiscriminate nor too wide in scope, although I'm not sure it needs quite that many sections. Grouping by business, sport, education, etc. would make it a lot more readable.--Michig (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as it has now been redone based on list of people from Texas. It would benefit from the the dates and perhaps a brief description like that list but I don't have time right now. Keresaspa (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that breaking people down by occupation is a perfectly meaningful way to organize a list, and I have done exactly that for several different places. I think that including "by occupation" raises a red flag to some, but this is certainly not "indiscriminate". Alansohn (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2009 (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.