Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Belgians

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 TO DELETE. The raw totals are 7-6 Delete, and neither side has a significantly stronger argument, therefore no consensus. Herostratus 04:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus 04:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Belgians

There are a few problems with this article. It is very long, and pretty much unmaintainable (since it's potentially a list of every single person who ever lived or worked in Belgium); it includes contentious criteria (Flemish / Walloon / Belgian); it is a bare list of links; it is doing a job which would be better served (with less miantenance) by the extant category hierarchy; it contains a mix of real and fictional. Other than allowing for people to be claimed as Balgian when their article editors would reject the category, I do not see the purpose here (and I speak as a fan and player of the game Famous Belgians). Just zis Guy you know? 19:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: while I agree that there are problems with the current form of the list (like the inclusion of fictional characters made by a Belgian), I don't think the list as such is superfluous, as it is a handy tool to see which Belgians have an article (your argument that it is "potentially a list of every single person who ever lived or worked in Belgium" is incorrect, as those people would be deleted immediately as not encyclopedic: it is a list of bluelinks), just like many other lists. Almost every country seems to have one (), and even though the existence of other articles is usually not an argument to keep one up for AfD, it is an indication that this list is not some anomaly, but a quite regular list. I don't see the contentious criteria Flemish/Walloon you mention, it only speaks about Belgium. Work on better rules, exclude errors and redlinks, but don't delete this list, it perfectly fits Wikipedia:List guideline, namely the second reason: navigation. Fram 20:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Categorize and Delete Danny Lilithborne 21:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in favor of categorization ST47 23:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Better suited for category. wikipediatrix 00:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The argument that "every person from X-group will end up being listed" is usually a red-herring or fallacious. As I recall lists are accepted when they list things important to the topic or where the topic is important to them. A list of people important to Belgium or where being Belgian is important to them will not be a list of every Belgian. It won't even be a list of every Belgian who considers their Belgian identity important as most of those people aren't notable enough to have an article. If the list can be pared down to notable people important to Belgium than it'll be maintainable. IOW fix it, don't kill it.--T. Anthony 01:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is the canonical example of what categories are for --- Deville (Talk) 03:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: No, to the contrary. This list has redlinks (wanted/needed articles), which a category can't have. It has subdivisions, which you otherwise have to do with subcategories but can't do in one category. It has a short explanation after some of the names, which you, again, can't do in categories. I wouldn't call it the canonical example of what lists are for ;-) , but it is potentially very useful and interesting and can't be replaced by a category while keeping all the information. Fram 07:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, absurd nomination. Lists and categories serve very different purposes. If the list needs to be expanded and improved -- well , that's not a matter for AfD. -- Visviva 04:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Fram. This list can clearly do things a category couldn't. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• supprime (delete). we have a category with many sub-categories, so we definitely don't need this list which just mulitplies the red ink. Ohconfucius 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Fram. The list definitely complies with WP:LIST. It provides a valuable information source (Information), it can be used as a table of contents (Naviguation) and is useful for Wikipedia development purposes (Development). The list is perfectly maintainable since it only comprises notable Belgians. --Edcolins 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: whether such lists should be used or whether categories are enough should make into separate discussion. Almost every nationality has such list. Personally, I would recomend to delete them all as they are /very/ hard to maintain (people are constantly adding everyone with article there). Pavel Vozenilek 19:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - duplicates exisiting categories. Cats are easier to keep up to date and do a better job. <POV> These lists only serve to give WP space to people who otherwise would not be notable enough</POV>. BlueValour 20:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have used this in my daily work and find it useful! Mallanox 18:52, 27 August 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.