Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notable people who were once a cheerleader


 * 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 of the debate was keep. SushiGeek 07:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Notable people who were once a cheerleader List of cheerleaders
Redundant with Category:Cheerleaders. Rob 19:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to List of cheerleaders. Lists are not redundant with cats. Melchoir 19:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that it's been moved, I guess this is a keep vote. Melchoir 22:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Move as per above. -- Grafikm_fr 19:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Move, but needs references. George W. Bush? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * George Bush ref (note the fifth picture down), one of many. GWB was a cheerleader (literally) both at Phillips Andover and Yale. --Calton | Talk 00:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, didn't see that one. I've removed it. My general feeling is that lists don't need references as long as their listings are confirmed by the individual articles. Technically, Bush was once a cheerleader, but his articles don't mention it. Of course, one could re-add Bush to the list with a ref... I'm going in circles. Melchoir 20:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment seems to have been moved/merged/redirected already. However Keep for list of cheerleaders per lists not being redundant with categories. Jcuk 21:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What can you do with this list, that you can't do with a category? --Rob 21:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Along with the usual formatting and organization replies when that question gets asked, which you can find at Categories, lists, and series boxes, one can include the place(s) where the subjects cheer...led. (There's a marvelous example of this idea in action here.) One can also include their present occupations for contrast. Melchoir 22:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A simple list, no. A list with details (the sort that are, frankly, too trivial for most biographical articles), sure. I oppose making it a category, as my view is that if something is not worth mentioning (or is not stark staringly obvious), it's not important enough to note with a category. --Calton | Talk 00:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, the category is fine. Stifle (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, the cathegory is good enough. --MaNeMeBasat 13:45, 27 April 2006 (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.