Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most famous and infamous people of the American Old West


 * 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. There is clear consensus that this is not appropriate main-space content for the encyclopedia. If regularly updated (an important proviso), it could be a useful maintenance aid, and I would consider userfying to WP-space if a WikiProject were interested in maintaining it; but as Alan Liefting points out (in the last-but-one comment of the debate) there are tools and bots that can do the same job and keep the tables up to date automatically. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

List of the most famous and infamous people of the American Old West

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article has no sourced, because it is 100% original research. It ranks people based on the number of page views of their WP article. It sets arbitrary criteria (which is fine in a research project, not fine for a WP article). The concept of "people from category X whose Wikipedia pages get lots of views" is fundamentally unencyclopedic, and unambiguously violates WP:OR. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I would point out that the following lists cite no sources: List of Western lawmen; List of Old West gunfighters; List of cowboys and cowgirls How do we know that these lists are authoritative? Unbiased? Why don't we demand their deletion because they cite no sources and thus may not be neutral in tone and content? Smallchief (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * DeleteThis is pure original and irrelevant research. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ';Retain. This article is far more significant than many trivial lists on Wikipedia.  There are several lists of important/prominent/famous/infamous people on Wikipedia that derive from a single source or a single individual's opinion.  If those articles are allowed to exist, why not this one?  And the article has a source -- the page view statistics for Wikipedia.  Why are not those statistics not as valid as, say, the statistics generated for book sales by a publisher?  Do not our statistics on the sales of Gone with the Wind come from a single source?  The publisher.
 * "Fundamentally unencylopedic, you say!!" Wikipedia has articles about every character who ever appeared in a comic book, every actor who ever spoke a line in a forgotten movie.  You're telling me that a ranked list of the most prominent individuals in the  American Old West with data deriving from the users of one of the top ten web sites -- Wikipedia -- in the world is not notable?
 * I've given you a good and significant list that may help editors, writers, and Wikipedia users evaluate the relative importance of a number of individuals important in the history of the American Old West. I've written or contributed to hundreds of Wikipedia articles. I've never had the notability of an article challenged before. I believe I am owed a bit more courtesy.  Smallchief (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not the point. It's more of a category listing.  I've written or contributed to at least a couple thousand wikipedia articles, and lost a few deletion discussions.  This happens all the time.  Don't be too upset, this is pretty common.  Montanabw (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment it's still original research. As such it needs to go.. Courtesy doesn't come into this one way or the other. A deletion discussion is a courteous way of reaching a consensus. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should review Wikipedia guidelines on courtesy? Smallchief (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might look at what is Original Research. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It IS interesting and useful. North8000 (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Smallchief (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure WP:OR. WP page rankings do not equate to notabilty.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as impossible to sustain. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete, title is inherent OR. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your concern could be met by re-titling the article, List of the most prominent people in the American Old West as measured by Wikipedia Users. What would be different about that title than a list of 100 most important people as determined by Time Magazine.  Smallchief (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Totally unsuitable for an article but WikiProject Wild West might be interested. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting indeed! Dennis Brown (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete utter waste of bandwidth, wikipedia is not a source for itself. This is a list of page hits, nothing more.  Should be made into some sort of statistics page for the wikiproject   Montanabw (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Allow me to use this opportunity to turn down your invitation to join the Montana Working Group. Smallchief (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had articles deleted myself if I could not fix them, no big deal, the comments here are well-taken. This isn't a personal thing. But sorry I said "waste of bandwidth." That was a bit rude, I'm sorry I said that.   Montanabw (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You've reaffirmed my faith in Montanans. ;) Smallchief (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowball Delete This is the very definition of WP:OR.  It would be a dangerous precedent to allow articles that were simply lists of internal hit counts.  Where would it end? --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Should have a speedy for this sort of stuff. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy It is interesting, I don't question that, but it is also original research that honestly shouldn't have any academic credibility outside of here.  It is basically a "what wikipedians are clicking on page", which isn't encyclopedic.  I might visit a website that had interesting stuff like this, even bookmark it, but that doesn't make it encyclopedia material.  Sorry Smallchief.  I know your heart is in the right place, but that isn't enough to keep.  Dennis Brown (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I take your opinion as definitive. I would comment, however, (I just looked it up) that the fifth pillar of Wikipedia is that "there are no rules."  and that "exceptions should be made."  I would maintain there is nothing objectionable about this article, nothing biased, and that it is essentially harmless, and possibly even useful. Original research?  That's a compliment.  All I did was tote up some numbers. I do more original research than that when I make up a grocery list.


 * I believe that this article has some minor significance -- and does no harm. It is an objective attempt, using Wikipedia statistics, to assign an order of importance on a class of people (Old West types).  I find it highly interesting that Jesse James has more readership than Custer or Sitting Bull or Jim Bridger (who to my surprise didn't make it into the 10,000 hits a month elite.)  I found it highly interesting that Wyatt Earp's consort (and later wife) makes the list.  If fame and Wikipedia hits don't constitute sufficient reason to have an article, why are there articles about every baseball player who came to bat in the major leagues over the last 150 years, every musician in every band that ever made a record, and every actor who ever appeared on the silver screen?  In other words, I believe that this article has been unjustly judged and I am thoroughly irritated by the sniping and skin-deep analysis of many of the critics.


 * However, it would seem that the bureaucrats of Wikipedia would rather enforce narrow rules (which don't exist according the the pillars of Wikipedia) and be lost at sea (and given the anniversary, to go down with the Titanic) about the relative importance of subjects. They thus might heartily approve of a 100,000 byte article about someone who played saxophone in a fourth of July parade rather than attempt to seek some sort of objective criteria about what might be important and what is not so important.


 * My article was a modest and preliminary attempt to find criteria in which notability and importance of people could be assessed. As such, I was merely following another of the five pillars of Wikipeda.  "Be bold."  Obviously, my "boldness" does not win favor in the bureaucracy.  I should have known better.


 * Please tell me how I can appeal this decision to a higher authority. Smallchief (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not your article. It is Wikipedia's article. You need to distance yourself from any ownership considerations. With regard to appeals, the decision is not yet made. It seems likely that deletion will be the result. You may then take this to the Deletion Review process. Wikipedia is made up of many editors, all of whom, like you, have strong opinions and the right to be heard. It is imperfect, but works well enough. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Friend... As someone who likes to use Ignore All Rules (and abhors authority in general), I feel I can speak with some experience when I say that this probably won't stick. Wish it would, but I would bet money it won't.  I won't discourage you from seeking review afterwards, but I'm just trying to be a friend when I say "don't raise your hopes".  If coolness factor was criteria, I would have voted to keep.  Ask anyone, I'm quick on the trigger to AFD an article, yet I went and tried to get several other opinions simply because I was hoping that my gut instinct was wrong, and never did put it up for delete.  I like the page, I think it is useful, but "original research" isn't a compliment here in AFD-land, it is a death sentence.  I know you are proud of the article, and you did a great job, but as a friend, I'm telling you, there comes a time when you are better off if you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.  This is one of those times.  If you can't "win", lose with dignity, and learn from the experience.  Dennis Brown (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you're not understanding here Smallchief. This is original research. Period. Original research is forbidden. You say it's not one of the five pillars, but it is, the first one: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia--specifically, "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR NEW IDEAS" (caps in original). This concept does not exist anywhere in the world other than in your own analysis. It may be relevant enough for publishing somewhere else--I can see the value in an academic analysis of Wikipedia that attempts to draw some sort of conclusions about popularity based on page hits on Wikipedia, assuming you could find the right academic paradigm to fit that into.  But that is a research paper, suitable for an academic journal, not an encyclopedia article.  Encyclopedia articles are distillations of what other sources which are already known to be reliable have said about topics.
 * As a side note, I have no objection to userfication of this or putting it in a Wikiproject's space, so long as it's tagged "no-index". I can see how this list would be valuable for building the encyclopedia, because it might help project members identify the articles most in need of attention (i.e., those we should concentrate on improving because they're the ones readers want to know about). But not as an encyclopedia article itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Userfy or send to project space. We don't have lists in article space based on numbers of views and I doubt that we should start. As others have mentioned, however, organizing information on this basis could be useful and interesting for other purposes, such as for project prioritization. --Arxiloxos (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep But remove the ranking data and rename to List of people of the American Old West.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - or Userfy - either way, the parameters for inclusion are too vague (in terms of geography and/or time) or too specific (in terms of hit-rate per period). Furthermore, since when has Wikipedia been allowed to cite its own statistics to verify inclusion? Additionally, I have issues with some of the names included - Pancho Villa, OK - but where's Emiliano Zapata, then? And Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca? Are you serious? How is the 16th Century now part of the 'Old West'? Eddie.willers (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The "parameters for inclusion are clear. Prior to WW I (ie before the automobile revolution took hold) and associated with the US west of the Mississippi and nearby Canada and Mexico.  Villa certainly fits.  Zapata?  I associate him with Morelos and Mexico City -- a long ways south of the Rio Grande.
 * Cabeza de Vaca was probably the first White man to see a bison in its natural habitat;the first to describe Plains Indians (the "People of the Stones" -- probably Jumanos -- in the vicinity of the Big Bend of Texas),and the leader of the first group of Europeans to to cross the continent from east to west. I'd say that qualifies Cabeza de Vaca for inclusion in a list of prominent people of the Old West.
 * Two people of good will can define "Old West" differently -- as almost any subject can be defined differently by different people. What were the beginning and ending dates of the Renaissance? Smallchief (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * merge to WP space, retitle "Most viewed WP articles about the Old West" and consider doing this for other areas also, and updating every 6 months or so.  this is not article space content, but similar rankings by subject areas would be very interesting; (alternatively, start a project collecting the information, or move this to a project page). This is the sort of list for which  arguing who belongs and who doesn't is really besides the point. There is some value to the reader, I think people like lists of n most whatevers for browsing,  but I think article space isn't quite right.   DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are tools and bots that can do all that. See WikiProject Environment/Popular pages as an example. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Send to a relevant project or Userfy not suitable for the main wiki. RafikiSykes (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2012 (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.