Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with breast implants


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus; keep.  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 12:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

List of people with breast implants
Subjective and crufty quasi-orphaned (linked to by another AFD'd list) list that will never be anywhere near complete, impossible to maintain, and a POV magnet. Note that the 'sources' the list provides for each claim are at best, dubious standard (blogs, forum posts, etc), and often contradictory (Mary Carey 'may' or 'may not' have had implants). Listcruft = delete   Proto    ||    type    14:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 14:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The title of the article is way too broad, in any event. 23skidoo 14:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Just another star in the night T 16:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  18:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment reaping the harvest of keeping List of people speculated to have been syphilitic and People speculated to have been autistic, etc. Perhaps we should just rename it to List of people speculated to have breast implants and all would be well (as I thought might be permitted under WP's loose with the facts regime; see my comment on). More Yuck!!!! Carlossuarez46 22:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Raw data rather than an encyclopedia article. Golfcam 04:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course, as it has already survived a VFD, and it's better documented than pretty much any WP list out there. But you sure do have a lot of friends, I'll give you that. 131.111.8.97 13:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, It doesn't have to be encylopedic, its a list. Lists are almanac-like. Wikipedia is an almanac, encyclopedia, and Gazetteer Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, because Wikipedia is not for badly-sourced potentially limitless lists with POV entry criteria. See also Listcruft. Stifle (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, if properly sourced. Stu   ’Bout ye!  08:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, we've seen more unreliable. It just needs supervision. Dara Barkhordar 02:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Richard Arthur Norton. Eixo 23:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, relatively well-referenced list and on a much-discussed topic. Kappa 10:04, 15 April 2006 (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.