Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named John


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 00:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

List of people named John

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-defining or trivial characteristic. This is a pointless list that serves no useful purpose. It could quickly grow to thousands of entries that would render it unreadable. WWGB 09:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, it's no more pointless than any other list. Besides, with sections and tabularized (sortable by date of birth and alphabetical), the list is perfectly navigable. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 12:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect. This was branched out of John for no apparent reason, so I've redirected it back. Some of the given names should probably be removed but the rest, like the various Popes, are sound. &mdash;Xezbeth 09:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, why do popes get to be on the list but not other Johns? Don't be biased. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 12:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Because popes are very frequently referred to simply by the single name, and other Johns are not. Listing every John Doe with the same prominence is biased.  (Even the popes are borderline on disambiguation pages;  it would probably be better to point common pope names to Names of popes.)  --Piet Delport 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just delete. I don't think there's anything here that's not at John as well.  I really don't know what would possess someone to create this page.  Someguy1221 10:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fast, strong, hard delete - can this be speedied? /Blaxthos 11:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Tag as a disambiguation page - NOT! Disambig pages - and that's essentially what this is - only work when someone could reasonably be expected not to know or provide more specific information. Here, everyone knows the last name of whichever "John" they're thinking of. Yechiel Man  12:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * FAST, STRONG, HARD KEEP! ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 12:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well you would say that, since you wrote the "article". WWGB 12:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, is there any rationale behind this vote? (of course not...) /Blaxthos 12:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete ridiculous listcruft that could go on for days and days. I also believe some of it is copied straight from John--Ispy1981 12:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - John already disambiguates and there is no need for this page for any purpose. Otto4711 12:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to John. Duplicates the info of the disambig page. --Bren talk 12:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Infinite listcruft and vandalism magnet. -R. fiend 15:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you people bothered to actually research the history of John, you would see that List of people named John was made up of entries moved (not copied) from John (which someone else reverted). Why should some popes and other religions/"royal" and some generic Johns be allowed on the list and not others? Hypocritical bias. The list isn't an article, WWGB--hence why it's called a list! It should be fairly obvious why this was page was created--to free up John to actually refer to just John articles and not include lists of compound word articles (i.e. people with the first/last name of "John"). ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ 16:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason, in case it's not obvious, why we have kings and popes named John but not any old Johnny -come-lately is that very few people are known by first name only. A list of all Johns, even all Johns who have Wikipedia articles, would be too broad to ever be even close to complete, making all inclusions arbitrary. Kings and Popes use one name only; John of England is basically never refered to as Jphn Plantagenet, even if that were a proper last name, hence it is reasonable to disambiguate him at John. Cash, Fogarty, Cena, Carson, Dalton, et al are not known simply as "John" to anyone but close friends. For them, if we use one name, we use last names, and it is at those articles that we disambiguate them. -R. fiend 00:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Listcruft of the very worst kind. WP:NOT. Unfortunately there is no speedy criteria for articles that are just plain crap. MartinDK 17:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 21:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speediest delete possible, with salt. Pointless list that will never be complete (as I said when I put a prod on the article early on), created by an editor who seems to delight in being disruptive and combative, if his talk page and block log is any indication. Realkyhick 22:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Industrial Strength Delete This ridiculous list puts another article (John) in danger of deletion.  Can you imagine if we had a "List of People Named...." for every name out there?  Flush this one down the... you know. Mandsford 23:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There is already a list at John.--JForget 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 06:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom., and all comments in agreement.--JayJasper 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge as there is similar article John as told by JForget Jst enthar 04:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that much of this list was originally moved out of John (which is a disambiguation page, and should only contain disambiguation content). --Piet Delport 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete other names have disambiguation pages, why is John so special that it should have this huge list? --U.U. 10:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom--Dcooper 11:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a page full of links to articles that need disambiguation like I need a hole in my head.  Violates WP:LIST, as these are only people who share the name John.  I'm starting to wonder if the creator of this article is going to create List of people whose names are in the White Pages. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:48, 28 June 2007 (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.