Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with heterochromia


 * 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 no consensus to delete. - brenneman  05:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

List of people with heterochromia

 * — (View AfD)

Tagged as unverifiable, un-encyclopaedic, massive number of external links to photos instead of sourcing suitable free images -- Kind Regards -  Heligoland  |   Talk  |   Contribs  23:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It could be mentioned in the appropriate articles where heterochromia had an impact of some kind, if there are any. Peter Grey 03:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Peter Grey. Just H 03:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and source better. How can it be indiscriminate if there is an article on the same subject? Is the article also indiscriminate? Concerning "massive number of external links to photos instead of sourcing suitable free images", I haven't a clue where in the article you are seeing this. I see five links that are no different than linking to any other external source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but clean up perhaps. Not sure how others stumbled into this, but I was actually in an real discussion about "who has heterochromia?" and landed here. Also, as a new editor, I (inappropriately?) added one of the photo links in question, (but the column header does say, "link to photo".)  It may apply to most AfDs, but it seems that there is a lot of information that nobody/most people don't care about, but exists nowhere else; exactly what I was looking for!  I'm not attached, but it seems a waste to lose the content. --Rossman7000 06:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the article, but remove everybody who's unsourced or fictional, and kill all the external photo links. It could be a useful resource if handled in the right way. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:51, 3 January 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.