Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of physicians


 * 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.

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination). When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was   Keep. The overwhelming consensus is that this list not be deleted. There is also support to split it, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. Xasodfuih (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

List of physicians

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

As with list of lawyers this is a list which is too broad in scope and should be replaced by a set of categories Benefix (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Far too broad and nearly endless! Should be split into separate lists and/or categories. Computerjoe 's talk 13:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to split. Computerjoe 's talk 14:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - An article that needs to be split up does not meet criteria for deletion. If you don't like it as it is, improve it or split it up.  There is no merit whatsoever to this proposal for deletion.  Millstream3 (talk)
 * Keep, but split each section into a separate article. Agree that list is too long as it stands, but this is better dealt with by means other than deletion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and split up. Hopefully, the consensus will be to split this into the various lists that were contemplated.  Frankly, there are too few lists of physicians, too many lists of athletes.  Screw the idea of "replacing" this with categories.  A category would be a nice addition, I'm sure, but we don't have to choose between one or the other.  Mandsford (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The basic assumption is that for every category of people, there should be a list. The additional information provided is helpful, whch is a reason for a list. I do not see why it is too long, at 27k. DGG (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Provides extra information that a category wouldn't provide. Letsdrinktea (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As it is or split up. Malick78 (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I might recommend giving this a new title, but otherwise the contents are encyclopedic and very interesting. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but the list as it stands looks encyclopædic, but is crying out for renaming. There's a "list of physicians" under "Doctors" in my local Yellow Pages; there's another (different) one in my brother's mobile phone (he's a doctor)… Tonywalton Talk 23:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - useful, not too long, list per WP:LIST. Bearian (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 07:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Snowball? Computerjoe 's talk 19:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: the difference between this one and list of lawyers is the notes? Nerfari (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2009 (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.