Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the world's most prominent women


 * 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

List of the world's most prominent women

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

List with inclusion criteria that are impossible to define. Prod was already rejected. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOR. No inclusion criteria, no ranking criteria and a suggested limit of 200 entries. Ajf773 (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"World's Most Prominent" wasn't the best of titles, too subjective, how do we measure "most prominent" - fame, money, sources available? I do think having a list of core women is encyclopedic but if we're to do so we need some sort of strict criteria for inclusion as there's potentially thousands of entries. When it comes to prominent actresses for instance, how do we measure who or who shouldn't be included? Angelina Jolie or Meryl Streep you could probably argue are prominent too, but how would you argue that above people like Nicole Kidman or Kate Winslet etc?.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Entirely subjective inclusion parameters, no objective metric possible. Carrite (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Note I won't comment on its value as a mainspace article, however could the closer kindly move it to User:Ipigott's user-space or to project space (under WikiProject Women in Red) rather than actually deleting it. It may be premature to have this as an actual article, but I expect the basic idea will be back once it has been figured out what to do with the inclusion criteria.  Dysklyver  15:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom, this is never going to meet the requirements of WP:LISTPEOPLE. There is no conceivable objective rationale for inclusion or exclusion. (Also Meryl Streep outranks Queen Victoria? Not on my watch.) It's a kind thought on 's part to move it to Women in Red, but that's ultimately pointless. That whole project is about creating articles for notable women; everyone on this arbitrary list is already a blue link.  A  Train talk 16:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be a Women in Green area, not Red, I've put the list in WikiProject Women/Women in Green/Most prominent women to keep it safe as it's a useful list whatever happens here. It's possible that it could be the basis of a future contest focusing on quality of core bios.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As a resource for a Wikiproject, this is great. It's impossible to defend as a mainspace article, especially with the apparent numeric rankings that seem to be an original synthesis.  A  Train talk 18:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - sorry but this is a clear violation of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. However as Dysklyver and Dr. Blofeld state above I would not be opposed if this article were to be moved or userfied to some other location. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: In the light of the various discussions about this article, I also agree that in its present form, the presentation is not suitable for the mainspace. I was obviously too hasty in moving it there. Nevertheless, given all the literature and the many websites addressing the issue in one way or another, I think some thought needs to be given to how best to cover the impact women achievers have had over the centuries, perhaps as a well-referenced timeline or in running prose rather than as a list. As for lists, one constructive suggestion has been that we might create a list of world women's firsts along the lines of List of American women's firsts. In any case, now that  has kindly copied the list to Women in Green, we can decide on the best way to go forward.--Ipigott (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is more suited to Wikipedia project space as an assist for various purposes. A list of women's firsts is also likely to become too big though. (I assume this is a list of women who are the first woman to do something, eg first woman to climb Mt Everest). The list we have is already very incomplete and very USA-centric but at least it is well defined. A list of woman who were the first human to do something may be a manageable list though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per the editors above, no parameters for inclusion, and with 2 billion women alive, not to mention those who have dies, the list could be infinite. A clear violation of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely subjective list and inclusion criteria. Also per Deathlibrarian. Metmeganslay 21:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck !vote from indef blocked sockpuppet. Softlavender (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, per above. No criteria for inclusion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: A few days ago, user Dr. Blofeld moved the page to .  50.0.205.192 (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete it as we don't maintain such lists.  Greenbörg  (talk)  18:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are no objective inclusion criteria for measuring "prominence" stated here — Carla Bruni but not Theresa May? Madonna but not Beyoncé? Aretha Franklin but not Ella Fitzgerald? Michelle Obama but not Nancy Reagan? J. K. Rowling but not Margaret Atwood? — so literally just about any woman with a Wikipedia article at all could be added to it, and that wouldn't be useful. Lists of noteworthy women grouped specifically by occupation would be more acceptable, but many such lists already exist — concentrating on gaps within that system would be more useful than this is. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This looks like more of a pet project, of the sort one would see on a personal webpage, article, or blog. It's not an encyclopedic entry at all, because there is no inclusion criteria and no metric or source of authority to include or exclude anyone except possibly the presence of a Wikipedia article and an image on Commons. I do like the layout, with the small thumbnails at the left, but the failure to qualify the concept makes this a nonstarter. Lists like these must be titled and grouped with strict and clear parameters rather than with WP:INDISCRIMINATE non-exclusionary titles. Perhaps Megalibrarygirl might have some good ideas for group concepts that meet Wikipedia's article notability guidelines and retention standards. Softlavender (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2017 (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.