Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Influential women

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. - Mailer Diablo 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Influential women

Influential women (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

A list with no criteria for inclusion, and for which good criteria for inclusion probably don't exist. We already have Category:Women for women with articles, all of whom were presumably influential to some extent, and we also have List of the first female holders of political offices which is really the only neutral criterion that I can think of that this article could use. Sopoforic 17:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-worthy list (not the subjects though!) Madmedea 18:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom ::mikmt 18:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft - and I can just imagine the arguments as we try to define 'influential'. --Squeezeweasel^talk 18:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Indiscriminate list. I have a sneaking suspicion that someone like Phyllis Schlafly might have a different opinion of what "influential" means than, say, Gloria Steinem, Larry Flynt, or a 19-year-old porn fan. --Charlene 19:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable, but I'm always amazed at how many people say "How do we define what's notable? Subjective!" Lists like these go by who has a Wikipedia biography, since having one owes to notability. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • So wouldn't that make this equivalent to a fully expanded Category:Women? That'd be a pretty huge list. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes it would be, hence my deletion rationale. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because as described will result in a massively huge article. Individual articles should be much more limited and specific in scope. --lquilter 21:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unmanageable Dugwiki 22:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Ill-defined and unmanageable listcruft. --OinkOink 04:50, 18 January 2007 (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.