Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bankrupts

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 Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of bankrupts

List of bankrupts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Bumping from speedy; this is a really bad idea for listcruft. But not patent nonsense. Awyong J. M. Salleh 07:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I still say it's nonsense. What's a bankrupt? JuJube 08:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • One who's been legally declared bankrupt? Awyong J. M. Salleh 08:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • FYI, the noun form is grammatically correct, but now rare. --Dhartung | Talk 22:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, you learn something new every day. ^_^ JuJube 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Given that there isn't a single source for this, and every reference could be potentially libelous, I can only see this thing being a minefield. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It seems like a list of people who filed for bankruptcy. Right now though, it fails WP:NOT. TJ Spyke 08:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It's theoretically possible to cite a list like this well (and let's face it, we'd damn well have to, given the social stigma and legal ramifications of filing for bankruptcy), but given how common it is for people to go bankrupt we'd have a potentially endless list. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It can't possibly be libellous since bankruptcy has to be a fact in law. The petition date have been provided. I agree it could be libellous to gossip about debt but not bankruptcy. Michael Jackson is not bankrupt. Mike Tyson was. Compare with a list of billionaires, total speculation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.71.192.65 (talk • contribs).
  • Comment: Even if it's sourced to avoid WP:BLP concerns, the list would be too big - it's like having a list of people in the United States or similar. Take a small country like Singapore for example - there were 21,434 bankrupts in Singapore as of Dec 31, 2004 [1]. What would the numbers be for the US? UK? Other countries? Even if we included only 1% of all bankruptcies in this article it would still be a monstrous list. Awyong J. M. Salleh 12:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Falsely claiming someone is bankrupt can be libelous potentially. As this article stands right now, the article doesn't cite anything specific enough for fact-checking without serious digging. Just a year isn't good enough. It'd need specific dates of filing, where it was filed, and any other relevant specific information. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There may well be one million bankrupts in the United States alone. (And yes, "bankrupt" is the word used for a person who has entered into bankruptcy.) Unmaintainable list that may be difficult to source from secondary sources - court documents are considered primary sources, aren't they? --Charlene 12:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an arbitrary and potentially libelous list.-- danntm ^T _C 16:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Arbitrary list. Note, however, that as long as we can provide sources, it wouldn't be libel (libel is spreading malicious falsehoods). I'm not using that as support, I'm just saying. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable and unmaintainable Alf^Photoman 19:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -bankrupts are notable people Astrotrain 20:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I can't see how this could possibly be sourceable and maintainable in the long run. I also can't see how it would be useful outside of the articles about people notable enough to be included. (Maybe it could be a category? I don't know.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Make it a category but not a list. Too bad there isn't a way to make an annotated category so the source for each one could be included, but presumably that information would be included in each individual article. Crypticfirefly 04:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all the reasons listed so far. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an unmaintainable list. Potential speedy candidate for a complete lack of context. Resolute 06:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Just as useful as a list of billionaires, as long as they are notable - e.g. they have an entry already.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.27.163.158 (talk • contribs).
• Keep What if (as is currently the case) it was restricted to Wikipedia entries - all the above arguments would be answered. Probably a couple of hundred articles all linked by the one factor. It can't be a category - categories are supposed to define - a list would be more appropriate—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.71.192.65 (talk • contribs).
• Comment: We probably don't want to turn this list into a category. Although I'm aware that consensus can change, Category:People who declared bankruptcy was deleted at CfD just two days ago. Awyong J. M. Salleh 12:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  And that category was renamed from Category:Famous Bankrupts. Awyong J. M. Salleh 12:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I could restrict it to a list of dead people as a compromise but since there is a legal status involved I just don't see the point. However, if the consensus is to delete this list I will move this list to the BBC website. I can still link to the wikipedia or answers.com entries from there anyway. I worked on the category and I thought that was the best option because bankruptcy is a legal fact not hearsay, not prurient and can be categorised.

Categorisation would seem to me best research tool.

I was overruled and people suggested it be listified. I find the subject fascinating - far more than a list of billionaires (and I have growing sympathy with the person who created "people who have been pied" - I wish I hadn't voted to delete it now!) There is pathos, redemption, revenge and hubris in these stories. The articles on wikipedia don't always reflect this aspect of a person's life and i would either like to flesh this out within the articles or do some pen pictures on this list which deal with it (rather than the artistic or other career of the subject). Johnnybriggs 07:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Useful enough, just has to be sourced. And again, we're talking about notable people, so the millions of bankrupt nobodies won't be on the list, like the millions of unknown six foot women won't on the List of tall women. Carlossuarez46 21:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a violation of WP:BLP, which requires that any such detail as this have iron-clad evidence. This list cites no evidence. semper fictilis 04:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I demand that all the tall women be measured immediately! And while Genghis Khan is on the list of short men I doubt there is evidence he was 155cm tall. No such problem with bankruptcy. Government primary documentation should be available for most and biographies the rest. The fault if any lies with the wikipedia article rather than the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.71.192.65 (talk) 09:03, 2 March 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.