Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People (2nd nomination)


 * 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; since the re-listing a snowstorm has hit. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

People

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Suitable only for either: --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * plural of person (in which case it should redirect to there)
 * dictionary content (unencyclopedic), or
 * disambiguation ala People (disambiguation)#Groups] (in which case that should be moved over)
 * Keep, an established and well-defined concept. Why is this even on AfD? J I P  &#124; Talk 07:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it does not appear to have ever had substantial encyclopedic content that is not already covered much better elsewhere on Wikipedia. People are notable, sure, and we have an article on them in the singular which should suffice, and if it didn't there are also a variety of articles on different kinds of groups of them already. I would be down to keep the article and even help improve it, if only anyone could suggest a scope for it that is encyclopedic (e.g. not dictionary cruft) and not completely redundant with other established articles. --Pfhorrest (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was meaning "people" as in "a people", a concept in itself, not as the plural of "person". If the word "people" only meant the plural of "person" then this article should simply be redirected, like we don't have separate articles for "dog" and "dogs". But "a people" is a group of humans that share a common ethnic and/or cultural background, which is a concept on its own right. J I P  &#124; Talk 10:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Human. This article is of no conceivable use as it stands save as an item in a dictionary which of course Wikipedia isn't. Improvement to the article sufficient to make it worthy of such a universal title would render it huge and unwieldy, and anyway, there are more obviously named pages for the information that an improved 'People' page would provide. asnac (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed per above, except redirect to person, not human. Not all people are necessarily humans, or at least to assume so violates WP:NPOV in the face of things such as discussed at Personhood. --Pfhorrest (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. While in a way this functions as a disambiguation, important and useful material would be lost by converting it to one-line descriptions as the nominator suggests. If anything is to be done to make this and People (disambiguation) resemble one another more, it is that these other meanings of "people" should be explained more. As a side note, is there any way of fixing this long list of irrelevant previous AfDs? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 08:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is about the singular noun "a people" as in maybe the Irish people or the Jewish people or any other group considered "a people". It's a very different referent from the legal concept of the referent of person, or the species referent of human, as in "I don't know whether Ohioans are a coherent people. Chrisrus (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge/Redirect. My preferred solution is to pare down the page to a proper disambiguation page, merging any resulting content not already present into People (disambiguation), which already points to Person on its first line; then move the resultant People (disambiguation) &rarr; People. --Pfhorrest (talk) 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Clarityfiend just deleted a number of items from People (disambiguation). If that was an appropriate move on his part, and those sorts of items are not suitable for a disambiguation page for "People", then I could be amenable to People being repurposed into an article on the subject Chrisrus describes above, summarizing and linking to the various related articles (e.g. tribe, nation, etc) that were until recently on the dab page, as that would no longer be redundant. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Split. The content seems notable, but the article should be split into people (political science) and people (legal term) or such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 16:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The current content, after deleting the dicdefs that were in the lead, is summary styles of two other articles, Commoner and Popular sovereignty. Are you suggesting that that content should be split into the two hypothetical articles you name above? How would that not be entirely redundant with the two articles it is already summaries of? --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to person. The nominator has a point in relation the the encyclopedic value of the article. Till I Go Home (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The concept of a people goes far beyond political science or law; this needs expansion, not deletion or conversion to disambiguation.  This is an introduction to a group of related topics: it must be a summary of multiple topics because the topics are closely related, while a disambiguation page is meant for unrelated entities that merely share a name.  Various meanings of "the people" are not at all unrelated.  And yes, we Ohioans are coherent :-)  Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The term "people" and the term "person" have different meanings. They are both special, and yes people is the plural of person. But as stated above, the content is notable enough to have its own page. Tinton5 (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Question Does the usage in this article have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. I googled around a bit, and the question "what does it mean to be a people" seems to be of interest to various religions, as it is apparently used often this way in the Bible.  I also found discussion of the rights of peoples to self-determination in the UN Charter, which states that peoples have the right to govern themselves, but then it becomes a question what exactly that means.  So it seems to be an important topic discussed for some time.  I'd ask experts in international law, social philosophy, and the antropological study of tribes and such, as well as certain religions.  They must have good published papers on the topic.  But more exactly to what I think is your point, I don't know if the article people does cite this kind of coverage.  If not, then the question becomes whether to delete it on those grounds or to improve it by seeing to it that it does.  To get away from the point, I can't see deleting any article on notablity grounds alone so long as (9270) 1978 VO8 and thousands of other blatant notablity fails are allowed to exist.  While specks of rock that have nothing to do with anything and are of interest to no one such as (9270) 1978 VO8 get articles, it seems unfair to delete something more notable (wouldn't just about anything be?) on notablity grounds alone, and a something just wrong to delete an article on a concept as hugely important and interesting as People on notablity grounds alone. Chrisrus (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep A notable political concept which is discussed in detail in sources such as Bringing in the People and Citizenship: the history of an idea. Warden (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and do the necessary work for a Featured Article.  One of the most absurd nomination I have ever seen in five years here. Basic political concept to western civilization. Thousands of sources available and relevant, and the Col's sources prove notability  beyond any question (as expected, for he,  unlike many people around here, actually looks for sourcing) . This might be one of the rare cases for including the article in the title, as The People -- it would clarify the meaning. Easily expandable to many times the current length, with many times the current sources.   DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: It isn't often that I agree with the likes of DGG and Warden at AfD, but we do here; this is quite an absurd nomination. Beyond that, why was this relisted, with as strong a consensus to Keep as there already was?  Ravenswing  11:37, 12 January 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.