Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of veterinarians


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Reywas92Talk 18:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

List of veterinarians

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list-article doesn't pass the test for notability of a standalone list WP:LISTN. There is no citation indicating that this is a topic that is covered or discussed by independent reliable secondary sources (a directory wouldn't count). This list contains non-notable entries: specifically people who are notable for things other than being a veterinarian (rugby, politician, ice skater) but who happen to also be a vet (for which they are NOT notable). For twelve years this article has had a hatnote asking for more citations and in that time the list has gained 15 citations (from 0 to 15), gained 58 more entries (from 38 to 96), and today has 81 uncited entries. There is already an adequate category "Veterinarians by nationality" (which has well over 400 entries). This is just WP:LISTCRUFT. Normal Op (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep It is easy to find a list of famous veterinarians such as this and so the topic passes WP:LISTN. The nomination complains about insufficient citations but then suggests using a category instead which is absurd because that category has zero citations!  WP:CLN makes it very clear that we don't delete lists to favour categories.  As for WP:LISTCRUFT, that's just WP:CRUFTCRUFT. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as standard index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and as complement to Category:Veterinarians per WP:NOTDUP. People by occupation is one of the most fundamental ways to index biographical articles. The nominator just seems unfamiliar with the purpose of such lists as well as the purpose of AFD, as everything else is a matter for cleanup and development (such as the lack of inline citations). I'll disagree also with their characterization of "non-notable entries". First off, to avoid confusion, that language should only be used to mean entries for subjects that do not have or merit articles, and the list only has bluelinks. Second, there's no requirement that lists exclude "people who are notable for other things", I don't know why that would be desirable nor meaningful. If they meet the list's inclusion criteria (or the category's), they should be included. To the extent LISTN is relevant (and it really isn't for this type of navigational list), the most obvious discussion of veterinarians as a group would be demonstrated at veterinarian, would it not? postdlf (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP A valid list article, aids in navigation, plenty of blue links to notable veterinarians that have their own articles. List articles show more information than categories and are thus more useful.  And if its in a category you don't need a reference to prove it should be on the list, this a navigational list so it not needed.   D r e a m Focus  23:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Valid list per WP:CLN.  // Timothy ::  talk  03:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep but require notability (as a veterinarian) as a listing criterion. It's standard operating procedure to impose WP:LISTCRITERIA on lists that attract the addition of non-encyclopedic entries (either of non-notable entries, or trivia entries to notable topics that are not notable for  topic).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We do typically want to exclude people without articles from such lists, or have a minimum threshold for what qualifies them (e.g., someone who failed out of vet school or cleaned cages in high school would not qualify), but beyond that if someone passes that threshold they should be included. I don't see any benefit to having the arbitrary and subjective criteria "not known for other things," which would make who is included or not seemingly random ("Yes, Bob and Jan both were full time practicing vets for 10 years, but Bob is the all-time Wheel of Fortune champ so we're going to ignore that profession for him"). What professions people had is certainly of biographical importance, as well as of interest to that specific profession. We do ourselves and our readers a disservice if we exclude entries like Wayne Allard, who continued to operate a full-time veterinary practice while serving in the Colorado State Senate, or Nicky Rackard who completed vet school though his athletic career made it take longer, and then after retiring from sports and fighting alcoholism he returned to his vet practice. That's not "trivia". postdlf (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP, Contains valid and real names some with links, satisfies WP:LISTN . Alex-h (talk) 09:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep but require notability (as a veterinarian) as a listing criterion Brad Thomas Hanks (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - valid list, but remove any red links. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2020 (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.