Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with dual American and British citizenship


 * 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. Clear consensus to delete, considering that the only argument for keeping was, this has been written about in books and the web, just look it up. If it has indeed been written about, then please present some suitable sources. Simply asserting that sources exist isn't enough. I'm assuming that 's intent after striking their vote is to remain neutral (please correct me if that's not the case). -- RoySmith (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

List of people with dual American and British citizenship

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY #6: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. No evidence this has been discussed in multiple reliable sources as an encyclopedic topic. The scope of this topic may also be too wide to be useful, per WP:SALAT. SST flyer  14:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  SST  flyer  14:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete - There's no way this is an encyclopedic list. Just having dual citizenship of these particular countries doesn't make a person worthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia.  Event horizon51  (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Would you care to explain further why you think this isn't encyclopedia topic?--Prisencolin (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:SALAT. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am striking my vote per the discussion at Articles for deletion/List of people with dual American and German citizenship. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete unencylcopedic list. List of people with combined X and Y citizenship is not a notable subject in itself.  A category would be an appropriate way of categorising such people. MLA (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Categories and losts that cover the same ground are entirely acceptable, so this isn't a valid reason for deletion.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Seeing as my reasons for delete are not encylcopedic and not notable, the fact I offer an alternative in the form of using a category is not a reason to question the validity of my position. MLA (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is actually, and not just because of the guideline Prisencolin cited (have you read WP:NOTDUP?). If it's not encyclopedic information as a list, how can it be encyclopedic information as a category? It's the same information regardless of presentation format. And it's unclear what "not notable" would mean, if anything, for a list of this kind, which indexes articles. The question is whether this fact about those article subjects is useful or significant enough to merit indexing, and if you think it's a significant enough fact to merit categorization, then it's significant enough to merit listing because the threshold is higher for categories (see WP:DEFINING). postdlf (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep this has been written about in books and the web, just look it up.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete instead as it is a conceivable article, but there are also numerous questionability factors, including maintaining its integrity; also, there's the fact of simply overall listing. There's enough to suggest it's simply best deleted. SwisterTwister   talk  04:33, 20 July 2016 (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.