Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people youngest in their field (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Singu larity  01:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

List of people youngest in their field
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Previously AFDed with a no consensus result, this list is an OR and trivia magnet, is indiscriminate and limitless, and does not appear to be encyclopedic. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - is apporopriate for an almanac or guiness book of records, but not for an encylopedia.Yobmod (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For now Wikipedia does serve purposes of an almanac. I believe it even says that somewhere. However I will copy this to a talk archive. You can do with it whatever you want.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep – My first question, what is encyclopedic? Per Oxford Dictionary it is “…en•cy•clo•pe•dic / enˌsīkləˈpēdik/ (also chiefly Brit. en•cy•clo•pae•dic) • adj. comprehensive in terms of information, relating to or containing names of famous people and places and information about words that is not simply linguistic. I believe this article meets Oxford Dictionary’s definition.  Why shouldn’t it meet ours? ShoesssS Talk 12:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is WP:NOT the Guinness Book, nor any other repository of loosely associated topics. Having no relationship beyond being the youngest "something" is practically a dictionary definition of the concept. Arkyan 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete A wildly incomplete article, not encyclopedic. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per nom. Trivial, bottomless and ill-defined. treelo  talk 19:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete No improvement at all since October 2007, when it was last nominated. Could be a good concept with a good writer, because a good writer would have at least listed the persons' ages when doing an article like this.  Again, this is not about people who are "youngest in their field" but rather about people who hold a "record" for having been the youngest to achieve an honor at a particular time.  How old is Tatum O'Neal now, 45?  50?  Although sourced, it's pure trivia, written by bunch of Guinness book wannabees.  Mandsford (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I created it, but admittedly let it go for a time. (I didn't even know of it's previous deletion debate) I mostly made it because of names that didn't fit List of child prodigies but were still, mostly, noted for early achievement.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Pointless article. WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2008 (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.