Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people from Yorkshire


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

List of people from Yorkshire

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

This was a sprawling list of hundreds of unsourced people (itself a breach of the incredibly important WP:BLP). I removed the unsourced content to reveal a list of, well, one person. The list was also a breach of WP:PLACE, which dictates this should've been a list broken down by ceremonial county (i.e. we should have a List of people from West Yorkshire, rather than Yorkshire.). Raised on WP:YORKS earlier in the week but no objections were made. I therefore recommend this be deleted and we start from scratch. --Jza84 | Talk  03:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Supplimentary comment: I've been bold and created a List of people from West Yorkshire. It is based on the earlier List of people from London. If we create district level lists we can create spaces for much more managable lists, lists that can also be useful for "see also" type headers in settlement-class articles. --Jza84 | Talk  16:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * delete for a start shouldn't this be "list of notable people from yorkshire"... else you might as well copy out the phone book :) Jessi1989 (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment No - it already is a list of only notable people (in that all entries have their own article). Lists_(stand-alone_lists) clearly states Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member (e.g. List of people from the Isle of Wight obviously does not include all people from the island). ... "notable" is assumed, and that word (or similar subjective words such as "famous," "noted," "prominent," etc.) should not be included in the title of a list article. Mdwh (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and tidy up. Standard WP:LIST-type topic, in fact probably more notable than usual due to the existence of books on the subject. I have restored the content for the time being, because (a) where someone was born isn't usually contentious material per WP:BLP (b) for many WP:BLP doesn't apply anyway as they're dead (c) some are sourced in their articles, which are linked; and (d) it would be ludicrous to remove people like Arthur Scargill, Dickie Bird, Chris Moyles, Jarvis Cocker, the Kaiser Chiefs or Michael Parkinson - people famously known as Yorkshirians - from the list. Although technically in breach of WP:PLACE, the list is consistent with common usage - when asked which county they're from, the vast majority of people will say "Yorkshire", not the constituent part. Black Kite 09:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't restore all the content, it's distruptive to the process. Yes some are dead, but many are not so WP:BLP does apply, and I'm at liberty to protect or even delete the page if you restore it again. Secondly the Kaiser Chiefs are not from Yorkshire, we use WP:PLACE and so they're from West Yorkshire. They appear on the List of people from Leeds anyway. --Jza84 | Talk  12:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLP - only contentious unsourced material should be removed. In 99% of cases, birthplaces are not contentious. Regardless of WP:PLACE, to say "the Kaiser Chiefs are not from Yorkshire" is simply not true in the real world. Black Kite 13:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say it is. If somebody wrote an article about me I would not want my place of birth to be wrong. But for example Michael Parkinson is from Yorkshire? Where's the source? You say in his article, well no its not. It also says he's from South Yorkshire. This is basic editorial stuff that we cite our sources - the onus is on you the contributor to cite your sources, not me who removes it (see WP:V). --Jza84 | Talk  14:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When Parkinson was born, Barnsley was not in South Yorkshire, which didn't then exist. It was in the West Riding of Yorkshire. Black Kite 14:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's equally disruptive to the process to remove every entry, just because some are unsourced. I'd also say it's disruptive to them immediately propose for deletion because all but one of the entries were removed, without allowing anyone else a chance to fix it up. As for Michael Parkinson, why haven't you removed the claims in his article of him being born in Yorkshire, as well as removing him from the category, if you are so worried about BLP and V? Mdwh (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. AfD is for discussiong the deletion of articles, not removing all the content from them and then putting them up for deletion. Black Kite 14:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed only the unsourced entries, not all of them "because some are unsourced". You have a chance to restore material if you cite your sources. There's no need to panic - WP:TEA applies folks. --Jza84 | Talk  16:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability is not an issue since almost all the entries are to people with wikipedia articles where the notability issues can be discussed. The few red links may need deleting or they may just point to articles that need to be created. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  10:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is not the reason for deletion, its the fact its an unsourced list that needs changing into four lists for West, North, South and East Yorkshire per WP:PLACE. --Jza84 | Talk  12:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Many of those people were not "from South Yorkshire" or whatever as they were born before the creation of such counties. Indeed, some are from Yorkshire, some are from the various ridings, and a few are from the current counties.  As such, any such splitting of the list would be very messy indeed. Black Kite</b> 14:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It works for London, Manchester and Tyne and Wear. I respect the issue is complex, but a consistent approach will be better for WP in the long run. Afternotes about boundary changes can be added to the modern units. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  16:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and create a disambiguation page under this title linking to the various lists of people from parts of Yorkshire (as it is a plausible title to be searched for). Little to no useful content at present, and if it were properly done, it would be unmanageably long, so lets create list of people from South Yorkshire, etc, now. Warofdreams talk 13:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's only got no useful content because the nominator of this AfD removed it all. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 14:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:V. However, I agree with Warofdreams, we could get something like List of people from Greater Manchester up and running for West Yorkshire quite easily (district level is much more useful, and managable). --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  14:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you noticed that most of the entries in those sub-articles, for instance List of people from Manchester are unsourced as well? Were I to assume bad faith, I could stub that article as well... <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 14:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed no. I'm not from Manchester and I don't have that watchlisted. However I've applied the same principles to List of people from Manchester and List of people from Oldham. This isn't anti-Yorkshire, this is pro-Wikipedia, so yes WP:AGF does apply. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  16:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There are plenty of such lists in Category:Lists_of_English_people_by_location. I do not see that sources are required to be inlined in the article, as in many cases they may be referenced in the person's own article page (although feel free to copy the reference across). To pick a few at random, I see Hilda of Whitby, George Porter, Chris Moyles. Also note that WP:BLP only applies to living people. Sure, I don't doubt that many on that list should be removed, but it is incorrect to remove all of them. I think it's misleading to remove all but one, and then propose for deletion. Furthermore, if there are people who shouldn't be on the list, then why not also remove or challenge the assertion in their own articles? Are you going to completely remove everyone in the category and sub-categories of Category:People from Yorkshire too? Mdwh (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The possible faults of other articles should not influence a decision on how and why to make this article better. If you read Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive 18 you will see that advice as applied here means that references should be included in this article even if they are present in the person's main article on wikipedia. There are a number of reasons for this, including the fact that each article should be as self-contained as possible. This is because changes in one article should not affect the status of another (which could happen if there were edits to the other article taht was being relied on to contain the verification for material in this article.)  DDStretch    (talk)  15:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there were possible faults, I was talking about how best to resolve problems of source. This discussion is not how to make this article better, it's about deleting the article altogether. I can't see where that link shows a consensus that references must be repeated in the List articles too? Mdwh (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on, its not really that difficult, all you have to do is not take a too rigid interpretation of what I wrote: You wrote that you were talking about problems of source in this and other wikipedia articles, and, to save space, I called them "faults", because that is what they are, especially if the material is about living people, or the article eventually is going to be put forward for GA or FA status: the absence of appropriate citations represent problems, flaws, faults, etc in the articles. It isn't difficult to see that, surely! On the matter of you not seeing any consensus, you will note the following paragraph in the response: "The argument that, as long as a piece of factual information is cited in the main article on X, we do not need to repeat the citation in other articles when we repeat that information, is (to some degree) valid... but it may not be the best practice. It really depends on the information, and whether it is at all contentious.  If it is contentious, then best practice would be to repeat the citation (if only to avoid constantly having to say... "but it is cited... see the main article").  In other words... the citation does not have to be repeated, but it probably should be." And that is a close interpretation of the guidelines and the requirements that are often expressed about an article which goes forwards for consideration for GA and FA status. Indeed, the good practice seems to be accepted by Black Kite here, and as far as I know by everyone interested in improving articles up to GA and FA status. Note that the practice I have recommended does not delete the names all together, as they will still be "waiting" on the talk page until they are verified and reinserted back into the article. On the absolutely clear basis that it is always better to insert referencing as new material is added, rather than left for later (a finding which requires no consensus, as it will be common knowledge to anyone who has ever had to write any article anywhere that requires references), I think your call for being shown consensus is not as sensible as you may think it is here. It is just common knowledge that this will be required if an article is not to be delayed in its journey to GA or FA status.   DDStretch    (talk)  18:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One editor's opinion on the matter does not constitute a "consensus". (And even he doesn't say that this is a requiremnent, just that it "probably should" be, although "it may not be the best practice".) Mdwh (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On the matter of "This discussion is not how to make this article better, it's about deleting the article altogether.", then please see that I was showing how deletion on the basis of the list containing too many unreferenced entries could be thwarted by attending to a better standard for assessing inclusion in the list based on supplying referenced material. It is far better to talk about how to improve matters than take an overly rigid black and white view about delete or retain. However, if you insist that we merely give a keep or delete decision, then I would say on the basis of how it is now 'Delete. If, however, you are interested in taking part in a process that would improve the article, and on the basis of that process actually occurring now, then I would give a tentative "Keep". So, ask yourself what would be a better way of commenting here: black and white, or trying to hep editors render an article better protected against deletion, thus allowing action to be taken prior to the discussion being closed which might well sway the closing editor's decision towards "Keep". Of course, I'm ignoring other criticisms or the problems this article may or may not have.  DDStretch    (talk)  18:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list (before it was severely shortened) provided information a category can't (what the people in question were known for, WP:CLN) and the entries are verifiable (note the difference from verified). A simple effort to copy references from the listed articles would address the issue at hand. Also, deleting possibly fixable material before nominating is misleading. - Mgm|(talk) 14:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added the deleted material to the talk page (Talk:List of people from Yorkshire) together with a strategy I and others have successfully begun to use on a variety of articles (as described in the talk page of this nominated article.) I suggest that a useful way forward is to adopt this strategy here; and that those editors in favour of keeping the article, as well as other editors, can easily persuade all round to their position by working on the list in the ways I have suggested. I do not think there is anything useful to be gained by making this AfD into more of a dispute than it is already.   DDStretch    (talk)  15:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the list is a suitable method of linking people together by area. The problem of splitting up lists of this type is what time frame do you use for the split. Do you use current boundaries which were not applicable to the people when they were alive or do you use divisions based on the timeframe when the people where alive.
 * It is a problem I agree, but we should be using modern units as (per WP:PLACE) that's what our readers will expect and be most accustomed to. We can always add supplimentary notes about former boundaries in the list itself (indeed that's what's recommended at WP:PLACE). Nevertheless, this is an unsourced list. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  16:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on the clearing of the list I feel that that is just disruption as 90% of the lists are in the same state, e.g. taking the List of people from Manchester there is only 2 items referenced, List of people from Thanet there are no entries referenced etc.. We have to apply the same to all of these articles not be selective to a particular one being fully referenced and the others ignored. Keith D (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree entirely. List of people from Bolton is the best I've seen, an example of workable good practice. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  16:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - should not the title be List of notable people from Yorkshire? That I could support.  However, under its current name, I would expect to see everyone and anyone who ever was born - lived or died there.  That I would oppose.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 17:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, but all these "List of people from X" pages where given standardised titles (I think following a discussion in 2007). Notability is assumed per Lists_(stand-alone_lists) and WP:NOTABILITY. What I want to do is delete this page to make way for modern, more managable lists, such as List of people from West Yorkshire. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  18:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thanks for pointing that out, I learn something new everyday here. In that case, what is the problem? the guideline says “…try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list.”  In other words just start a new list under the name you want.  It just becomes part of the general list.  No deletion necessary - no fuss/no muss!  Thanks  ShoesssS Talk 19:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also learning here. Where is that guideline from exactly? In this capacity, would we be prepared to create a dab page for Yorkshire, and link to new List of people from West Yorkshire and List of people from South Yorkshire (each themselves dab pages for the boroughs)? --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  19:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SALAT. Hope it helps. ShoesssS Talk 19:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no objection to more specific lists, but why not then have this page as a redirect, disambiguation page, or move to a "Lists of people ..." article? Why not move the content to these new pages (or the Talk page, if disputed) first? I don't see why this page needs to be deleted in order to "make way" for new lists. There is nothing stopping you creating those new lists. Furthermore, if this page is deleted, then all entries are lost and we can no longer refer to it to transfer entries across! Mdwh (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep cleanup and reference. The term Yorkshire is in common use and the page provides useful information that a category can't.  Replacing the page with ones for North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire would lose information as these do not cover the same area as the pre-1974 Yorkshire county and so people from Yorkshire prior to 1974 but not from the area of the three current counties would no longer be included. --Kaly99 (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically people born between 1894 and 1974 were from the three ridings - each counties in their day. Maintaining the current list not only takes it out of line with the rest of England, not only breaches WP:PLACE, not only makes a mamouth task of what could be a managable series of lists, but means someone from Saddleworth will appear in Oldham and Yorkshire lists - despite Yorkshire having been abolished for civil registration long ago. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  14:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - and split into the correct articles. Yorkshire no longer exists as a political entity, simply historic. Just because some lesser informed people still refer to Yorkshire doesn't mean Wikipedia should reduce itself to this. The list would be much better split into the ceremonial counties. Some serious problems relating to Yorkshire on Wikipedia thanks partly to the now banned User:Yorkshirian, original IP editor of the article has a very similar contribs. A split would be a huge boost for moving forward with Yorkshire related articles on Wiki instead of being stuck in the past, excuse the pun. ┌ Joshii ┐└ chat ┘ 20:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Categories perform the function much better than lists. Lists of this kind are only valuable if they contain red links indicating articles that are needed, or provide some useful additional information, but we have none here.  I am not a Yorkshireman, but would say the same about my own county.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete However, before deletion takes place, sufficient time should be given to allow the good work that is currently being done on providing verification for the names to be preserved by re-distributing the names amongst the modern administrative entities, either in the appropriate "List of ...." articles, the articles for the relevant authorities/towns/villages/cities, with or without using appropriate categories which reflect the modern authorities. The replacement of "list of ...." articles by categories is not cut and dry: the two have different functions, and the justifications one sees in the "List of ...." articles when they are written well cannot be reproduced in categories.  DDStretch    (talk)  03:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Yorkshire is the historic name, and that known elsewhere in the world than the UK for the region. A historic region is sufficiently appropriately  for such a list if it's sufficiently impt., and this one certainly is. Lists can & should indicate something about the nature of the person's notability   and this one does it very well.  I''d add dates also. The argument that lists are only valuable if the provide red links is not wp  policy--in fact, if they do, they tend to get nominated for deletion on the grounds of inadequate sourcing and demonstration of notability for many of the items contained.  DGG (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "historic region"? It is a former county, no longer used for statistical purposes, and definately not used for civil registration since the 19th century! Why is Yorkshire consistently allowed to fall out of line with the rest of the United Kingdom? We do not take the minority position that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries: the list should be seperated into modern units per policy. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  12:52, 23 December 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.