Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The list of famous bastards


 * 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. Larry V (talk &#124; contribs) 08:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The list of famous bastards

 * — (View AfD)

Listcruft, and quite offensive to those people who have (through no fault of their own) parents who were not married to each other. It might be argued to move to List of people born outside of marriage or some such title but that would be a useless list of mere coincidences. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The list is good. At finnish wikipedia even the leading moderator has contributed to it. The list can be limited to non-living persons if it feels offensive. But these days reasonable people do not see being a bastard as a bad thing. The title can be changed but that has nothing to do with deletion. Many readers of wikipedia will sure find the list interesting, especially after it has grown a bit. --Jarkka Saariluoma 12:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This comment is by the page creator. Note that the edit summary when the page was created was "YOU FUCKING BASTARDS!!!". Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 13:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So what? If you do not have any arguments relevant for this discussion, then no need of whining. --Jarkka Saariluoma 13:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The arguments are in the nomination. I merely wished to point to the fact that you were intimately involved with the article, and that your comment on creating it was not in line with your comment that "these days reasonable people do not see being a bastard as a bad thing" - or are you not among these "reasonable people"? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 13:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not very reasonable. --Jarkka Saariluoma 13:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename. The list is encyclopedic, but needs referencing. The has to be removed from the title per the naming conventions, and the term bastard is too ambiguous. A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 14:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Further comment per User:23skidoo: the word "famous" needs to be removed from the title as well, since any person on any list on wikipedia needs to pass the notability guidelines anyway. A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 14:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Violates WP:NPOV as it requires a POV judgement as to who is "famous", plus it's completely unsourced. If this article is kept it MUST be renamed without the "The" article. I would have moved the article myself but I can't since it's now in the AFD pipeline. 23skidoo 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, gross NPOV violation, unreferenced, and would be better as a category anyway. [ælfəks] 14:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this is just asking to be libellous. We'd need every entry referenced. At leas a category allows those with a particular knowledge of an individual to see them categories and remove the category if it is inappropriate. --Sandy Scott 14:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete even if it was renamed it would still be a meaningless collection of information. On the off chance it is kept, rename to List of people born outside of marriage as suggested above. Koweja 15:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, maybe our problem here is the use of the word BASTARD, which in our language use is an insult, in older times it just meant people born out of wedlock -- but I fail to see how that makes a person notable. In the case of August the Strong of Saxony we would have to include about 180, and their claim to fame would be depleting Saxony's treasure to the point of bankruptcy by alimony claims Alf photoman 15:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Requires subjective judgement on 'famous', many entries are bound to be contested or hard to prove, and an article with that title may as well just put up a neon sign reading "Hey vandals! Come on down!" If this is considered encyclopedic information, perhaps create or something similar. - Eron Talk 16:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment it doesn't require any subjective judgement if we change it from 'famous' to 'notable'. We've got policy, there.  We've also got policy on verifiability.  And if we're going to start removing articles that are likely to be vandalized, maybe we should AFD George W. Bush.  He gets vandalized a ton.  (You are right, though, that a list is unnecessary.  A category would probably do just fine.)  -- Plutor talk 21:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep but rename to "List of persons born out of wedlock" or some such. Illegitimacy was an important legal status in many countries (including Russia); the illegitimate couldn't marry, own property, or even work in some professions. Having such a list, especially for people born before ca. 1918, would make it easier for a student looking at the changing status of the illegitimate. I think that at least with respect to historical individuals it's quite encyclopedic. -- Charlene 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or (if you must keep) Rename: "List of famous illegitimate progeny". But deleting would be best since it is bound to become a vandal honeypot.  In fact, the page was created with a vandalistic first edit. Hu 16:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep with namechange. All the entries have articles already, and "vandal honeypot" isn't a valid reason for deletion. If that were true we wouldn't have articles on current presidents. The category isn't "meaningless" the description is tight and accurate if changed to "out of wedlock births". The word "famous" is being used here to mean they already have an Wikipedia entry and are "notable" by Wikipedia standards. If an article is unsourced, it just means someone has to add sources, and in this case its just a matter of taking the source from the individual articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral In order to be kept, the name would have to be changed since "bastard" has a strong connotation which violates NPOV, and the list would be referenced. However, I'm not so sure that the list doesn't constitute WP:TRIVIA.  —ShadowHalo 19:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Serves no encyclopedic purpose, even if renamed, and fails WP:NOT. That the article may be "interesting" is not encyclopedic. Agent 86 19:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I can see how this article is similar to other similar classifications, but I don't believe it is particularly useful. TSO1D 21:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep. I think the list could be useful and interesting.  It's got to be absolutely perfectly sourced, though...calling someone illegitimate could be considered slander, expecially if it's not true.  Probably more trouble than anyone would want to put into it.  Plus, as said by many others, the name really needs to be changed.  UsaSatsui 22:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the simplest remedy is a move. hateless 22:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Tzaquiel 22:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I think this is liftcruft, or random, non enyclopedic information. I also think this is un-manageable over time, like famous people with black hair, since it will include too many over time - driven by whether the information is referenced, not true. But if we do keep, bastard seems like the right word.  Wikipedia is factual, and unbiased, but not PC.Obina 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But article titles also should be as unambiguous as possible, and fact of the matter is that bastard is an ambiguous term. A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 00:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but probably move. Should have a source for each person on the list and shouldnt contain people who arent notable enough for an article. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep This is per UsaSatsui's argument above. Hiwever, Agent 86 also makes a good case for deletion too. The title of the article made me think it was about a list of famous obnoxious people (not 'bastard' in the sense illegitimate) but it is misleading. --SunStar Nettalk 23:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I can see no encyclopaedic merit in this article. Inevitably some kind soul will add a living person to the list, feeling will be hurt, legal action, etc etc. Also appears be contrary to WP:NOT. Mallanox 00:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * keep and change name This is a list containing people famous otherwise and generally know for being born out of wedlock. It;s not intended as insult. And because of that the name must be changed, because the literal meaning of the term is intended here, and such is decidedly not the meaning that most people would think of first. It wasnt mine until I read the comments here & looked at the content of the page.DGG 02:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This page serves no obvious people, and with the changes in western morality in recent decades is likely to become pointless. Such a list is begging to be troll-bait. A category is a possible way foward. The criterion of "important enough to have a WP article" suggests that a category may satisfy those who want such a thing. Ringbark 17:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and categorize any with valid references. --- RockMFR 01:26, 21 December 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.