Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of women investors


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

List of women investors

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I might be wrong but I really believe that this is a case of WP:LISTCRUFT. Anyone who invests money is an investor and they are either male or female. To my mind that fails the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information test. This is an unlimited list and is not encyclopedic IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete As per proposer - this is an unrestricted list which has no value in an encyclopedia. There may be a place for a list of notable or prominent female investors, with meaningful criteria for inclusion, but this article ain't it. Neiltonks (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    00:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    00:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    00:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    00:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * How do you think the information this list presents differs from Category:Women investors, or its parent Category:Investors? Do you think that category structure should also be deleted? postdlf (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, and also possibly delete Category:Women investors. Gender is not an impediment to investing; there is no glass ceiling. Gender differences in investing would make a worthwhile article, but individual female investors don't stand out or surprise anyone, any more than Height-challenged investors or African-American investors. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, and although this isn't the place to discuss it, Category:Women investors should be probably be deleted as well. The criteria for inclusion are extremely ill-defined and potentially infinite. Just about anyone who has a reasonable amount of money or owns a business has investments and is thus an "investor", although in the vast majority of cases this is not a defining characteristic, making it unsuitable to use for both lists and categories. There are some people (both men and women) who are "defined" as venture capitalists or whose primary occupation is working in investment firms, although even there, they may not be significant investors on a personal basis. Just two examples of the very inappropriate people on this list: Ellen Browning Scripps, a philanthropist. Yes, she invested in her brother's newspapers, among many other things that she did, but you would not define her as an "investor". Veronica Yip, an actress, singer, and businesswoman. Yes, she invested in her brother's failed Hong Kong Disneyland project and obviously in her own business ventures, but so what? It is not these investments which define her or her notability. It appears that the list (and category membership) consists of people whose article mentions that they invested some money in some thing at some point in their career. Voceditenore (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Further comment. It is also useful to note the criteria for stand-alone lists as applied to this one:
 * If this person weren't an "investor: would it reduce their fame or significance?
 * Is this person a canonical example of some facet of investment?
 * In many of the cases on that list (possibly the majority), the answer would be "no". Thus, what is the value of this stand-alone list? Voceditenore (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:LISTN as a topic that "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Women investors are a topic of special interest and research. They are often considered as a subset of the investing class and gobs of reliable sources document how gender impacts investor decisions. Here are a few from this year:
 * As Voceditenore noted, the list could benefit from well-defined inclusion criteria, but that isn't a reason for deletion. Per WP:CLN, this list is also complementary to the category, which is defining. gobonobo  + c 09:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As Voceditenore noted, the list could benefit from well-defined inclusion criteria, but that isn't a reason for deletion. Per WP:CLN, this list is also complementary to the category, which is defining. gobonobo  + c 09:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As Voceditenore noted, the list could benefit from well-defined inclusion criteria, but that isn't a reason for deletion. Per WP:CLN, this list is also complementary to the category, which is defining. gobonobo  + c 09:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As Voceditenore noted, the list could benefit from well-defined inclusion criteria, but that isn't a reason for deletion. Per WP:CLN, this list is also complementary to the category, which is defining. gobonobo  + c 09:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As Voceditenore noted, the list could benefit from well-defined inclusion criteria, but that isn't a reason for deletion. Per WP:CLN, this list is also complementary to the category, which is defining. gobonobo  + c 09:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per . I agree that the article needs work, but that's not a reason to delete, especially since it's relatively new. Give the creator time to work on it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 01:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Clarityfiend, and delete category. —Мандичка YO 😜 06:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Voceditenore, an indiscriminate collection of information, but keep (and clean up) the category if it is felt to be useful. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How could the same information be simultaneously indiscriminate and useful just depending on how it is formatted? List of women investors = Category:Women investors. postdlf (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete absent meaningful clarification as to what the actual subject of the article is and what the inclusion criteria are. Neither Oprah nor Martha Stewart is listed, although they've made huge, noteable investments in various businesses. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete this pointless, subjective list per prosposal. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The big problem here is there are two defining characteristics. Women and investors. If you are a notable investor that is one thing BUT what if you are a notable woman who is also an investor but not notable for being an investor? Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2015 (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.