Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of quadriplegic people

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was MERGE and REDIRECT to Quadriplegia; the merge has already been done.

I count five keeps, four merges (including the nominator), four deletes, and a troll. While there is no consensus to delete, a clear majority does not wish the article to survive independently. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 13:13, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

List of quadriplegic people
This article is redundant, since the information is now on. A separate list of people is not needed and should be deleted. Bratsche 04:36, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The information in Quadriplegia should be about the condition, leaving the list of people with the condition in its own article.  This prevents the article from becoming unmanageable.  There's examples of this all over Wikipedia.  Here are some examples: Chinese American and List of Chinese Americans, Pornographic actor and List of erotic actors, Multiracial and List of multiracial people &mdash; J3ff 06:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Give it room to grow.  There's got to be other quadriplegic people listed on wikipedia that aren't here. &mdash;james_anatidae 06:51, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Separate the list from the condition. There are many more out there that can be added. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, then create a category for this. Radiant! 09:29, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Given the small size of both list and article, they should be merged back together, although if the list does grow, then a separate page is fine. Either way, it's not a VFD issue. sjorford &rarr;&bull;&larr; 10:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * delete. this is what categories are for. Avriette 14:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Avriette.   If a quadriplegic is sufficiently notable to warrant an article, then that article can be placed in a category.  If a quadriplegic is not notable, then there is no purpose served by listing him or her in a list like this.   Being a quadriplegic is not inherently notable.  --BM 14:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into the main article. Due to the inherent tinyness of the list, I can't imagine it causing any problems if merged back. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  14:35, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a category. Probably the other lists noted by J3ff should be as well, but that's just my opinion. HyperZonktalk 18:13, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could be useful. JuntungWu 19:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: I merged it to Quadriplegia. Bratsche 21:55, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment:A list is not the same as a category. A category cannot show articles that are yet to be created.  A list on the other hand, can.  The links to uncreated articles in lists promotes the creation of new articles on Wikipedia, allowing it to grow. &mdash; J3ff 00:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. It promotes the creation of substubs, not articles. Especially with something as relatively obscure as quadriplegia. Radiant! 09:36, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and expand. Megan1967 06:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect (already has been merged). Leave it in the main article until that article is large enough to require the split.  Don't make people load an extra page for no reason.  Rossami (talk) 06:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.