Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with quadriplegia


 * 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 keep. No consensus to delete, and after a re-list, a consensus that it meets LISTN (notable X with notable Y); however, each entry must uphold WP:BLP (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

List of people with quadriplegia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unsourced random list of people with a disability. Some WP:BLP involved. This looks more like a category listing than anything else. Only one sentence at the top to define the list, and what it refers to is a general paralysis, not this specific one. The list was begun in 2010 and added to by several editors ... but no one has sourced anything. — Maile (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Maile  (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * WP:SOFIXIT. If it can be sourced, then source it. Have you checked the linked articles for corresponding information, and for sources? If you can confirm that anything is inaccurate, then remove it. See also WP:NOEFFORT. Note also that lists and categories are complementary, see WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that the corresponding category is at Category:People with tetraplegia, which matches the parent article tetraplegia (to which quadriplegia redirects as a synonym); this list should also conform to that. postdlf (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It took me about 15 mins to look through all of the entries A-C and migrate over sources verifying their inclusion in this list. Clearly this can be done for the rest. I also added a proper definition from the parent article. In case it wasn't clear, keep, completely meritless nomination. postdlf (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NLIST Lightburst (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the fact you can find sources does not demonstrate that the subject is notable. I see no justification of articles treating these people as a group in a way that justifies the list article. I did remove all the unsourced entries because we clearly cannot have such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you also delete misspelled words instead of correcting them? The sources were easy to migrate from the linked articles so your blanking has been undone. The justification for the list is the same for categorizing them in Category:People with tetraplegia; we are indexing articles by a significant fact common to the subjects. Or viewed from the other direction, listing notable examples of a notable topic. postdlf (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Potential BLP issues are not a reason to delete a notable list.★Trekker (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Everything is sourced, and the page has a clear inclusion criteria. No BLP issues here. Quite laughable that a huge chunk was blanked instead of making some attempt to source it. Christopher Reeve? Nah, never heard of him.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep notable people with a notabe, well-sourced condition that has in most cases (re)defined what they do passes LISTN. Not per Trekker, however, as BLP is very much a reason to delete anything, as long as it's not miused. ——  Serial  18:30, 19 July 2020 (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.