Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese people
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 no consensus. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of Japanese people
- List of Japanese people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This page intends to list all
notable Japanese people. To me this seems completely inpractical for a singe article. There must be a huge number of notable Japanese people past and present who are not included on the list - even if only the section of ficitonal Japanese people was truely complete it would still proably make it the longest article on Wikipedia. The page is also redundant as many of the listings are duplicated in the various pages from the catagory Lists of Japanese people. This is a catagory not an article. Guest9999 16:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
- Delete should be a category. I also wonder what the is the criteria for other notable people. And fictional people should not be included. Seems like a mess of an endless list.Ridernyc 16:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree, the purpose of a category is to provide groupings for articles, and this is a perfect application. And fictitious people should be removed; that's what the Amatulic 18:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Is already covered by SkierRMH 22:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In this case, I agree with Guest9999's housecleaning effort. It's a category already, and the category is a better way to navigate than this. Mandsford 00:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think we have a category for this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP This article-list is being deleted for the same incorrect reasons as the since overturned List of German Americans was deleted. This list is for a notable ethnic group as evidenced by its having an article and having a category. There is no valid WP reason why this list should be deleted. There is nothing in WP that says lists cannot also exist when categories exist. The list readily provides information for the reader that categories only provide by lots of work, reading one article after another, Lists provide names, dates of birth/death, and occupation/reason for notability--in other words why one might want to then read an article on a person. The list serves as an index to the category articles. Is the list perfect? No, but the job of WP editors is to improve articles (including lists) on notable subject matter, not delete them. Hmains 03:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of German Americans was not as far as I can tell covered by other more complete articles. There is an amazingly long list of actors, why have a shorter list here. This article needs to split.Ridernyc 12:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Our users are in need of sourced, annotated information about notable Japanese individuals as contained in this article. Improve, don't delete, if you have our users in mind. There is no reason in WP's guidelines that calls for us to hamper our users' research by entirely blanking this article. As seen by the many similar deletions over the past months, this delete proposal seems to have been made solely to prove a WP:POINT, and the case that our users should not be permitted to have a well sourced, annotated list of individuals of this notable group has not been convincingly made. Neither has the case been made that a category "does the same job," as a category is clearly not sourced and properly annotated, organized by occupation and date of birth and death, etc. If editors within the community of editors active in Japan-related article (who work together at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan decide that they wish to split this article into sub-articles, then we should let them make this decision, via consensus of editors knowledgeable in this subject. Badagnani 04:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- that's not what this list is though it's just a list with no information at all other than broad categories. Also several of the subsections are redundant of other more appropriate lists. Why is there a long list of actors and actresses and at the bottom a line see also list of Japanese actors, lists of Japanese actresses. This is list is way to broad a topic, and the topics have already been split and covered. Ridernyc 10:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, not a list of indiscriminate data. A long list is unencyclopedic, it doesn't do much of a difference if it is referenced or not. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It has already been stated that if editors within the community of editors active in Japan-related article (who work together at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan decide that, because the number of notable Japanese is so large, they wish to split this article into sub-articles by occupation or historical period, then we should let them make this decision, via consensus of editors knowledgeable in this subject, as is typically done for other similar subjects. Badagnani 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a split-off list from a List of Russians and List of French people use the same type of long list organization without being randomly targeted for deletion because of it). It is however important that the information is not deleted before being recreated as a "List of lists", in case the contributing editors happen to be off-line during this deletion debate, and any new editors willing to work on it to improve it will need enough time to make sure that the individuals appearing on this list are transfered into the correct sub-lists and that reliable sources from the individual articles are used to verify that sources exist to demonstrate notability. Pia 02:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We should not have a List of Russians or a List of African Americans either. These lists should not exist in the first place. ]
- Keep, merge duplicate content into relevant lists, and convert to a Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes for an explanation of why lists should not be deleted merely because of the existance of similar categories. DHowell 01:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet another pointless and indiscriminate list. Use categories. This goes for ALL LISTS OF PEOPLE including List of X-type of Jewish people and List of X-type of gay, lesbian and transgender people. There should be no free pass here. ]
- Comment - No, it really doesn't, as has been pointed out numerous times. A category is not referenced, annotated, and maintainable, and it is not organized, in a single page, by birth date/time period or occupation. Lists and categories are quite different and our users use them to find the information they are looking for in different ways. Both complement our project. Badagnani 22:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per Hmains, Badagnani, and Pia. As they've already stated, the list allows for more information to be displayed than would a catwegory (even though the catagory (or categories) already exist. The lists allows for much more flexibility in locating information, and provides much more information than a catagory. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, as above. This is not, and is not supposed to do the same thing at all as a category. Circeus 20:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Much as the idea would be interesting, I think you should do as previously suggested: split this up. After the question of accuracy, I think that there is no real reason to delete this. Koryu Obihiro 02:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.187.181.22 (talk) [reply]
Delete - Pointless list... I'd like to see a similar page that does exist.Qaanaaq 10:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.