Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who died in their thirties


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

List of people who died in their thirties

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This suffers from listcruft for several reasons. It is hopelessly incomplete and completing it would only result in an indiscriminate collection of information. The overall list of people who have died in their 30s hasn't been the subject of significant coverage, unlike, for example, a list of people who have died in their 110s. The list itself isn't useful at all, and doesn't have any encyclopedic purpose here. This is because the scope of the list is too wide to have a discriminate and encyclopedic article built from it (see WP:SALAT). Because there isn't any place to merge this, and because there is no way of editing it to comply with WP:NOT and WP:STAND, it should be deleted.  Them From  Space  20:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- I agree with the nominator. This list serves no useful navigational purpose, would include so many people if it were ever completed that it would be an indiscriminate collection of information, and the topic itself is of no particular interest. Reyk  YO!  22:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't see how such a list would be useful for our users. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The claim that the topic is of no interest seems quite absurd and is not substantiated by any evidence. The considerable labour of constructing this list would not have been performed if there were not some interest in the matter.  And a quick search soon reveals that lists of this sort occur commonly and so the matter is notable.  For example, in the monthly bulletin of the Indiana Board of Health, "The men and women who have died in their thirties include the loveliest list that can be compiled — Jesus, Mozart, Schubert, Keats, Shelley...".  If the list becomes unwieldy then we might split it - authors, composers, monarchs, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete perhaps a category system should be set up... Category:Lifetime 31 years or something... 65.94.253.16 (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. Easy delete. Cynof  G  avuf 10:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, expand and reference - per Colonel Warden.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 01:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment that would be an infinite list (for all practical purposes). I would hazard that at least 1% of the biography articles on Wikipedia would have to be listed. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is our policy that Wikipedia is not paper and so considerations of size are unimportant. For example, see our Lists of minor planets for which the count has reached two hundred and thirteen thousand and fifteen. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As those planets don't have articles of their own, where would you suggest putting the information other than a list, Colonel?  Aiken   &#9835;   18:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Utterly pointless, impractical list. Per our policy, WP:NOT, excessive listing of statistics is to be avoided. This "matter" isn't the slightest bit notable.  Aiken   &#9835;   18:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and comment A never ending list and would be incomplete. Wouldn't it be better as category?  But thinking about it, it is a useless category.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 23:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Impossibly huge and indiscrminate. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:10, 16 April 2010 (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.