Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indians

From 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 of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 18:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Indians

Vast, close to unmaintainable, has the potential to be even vaster - India is, after all, the second most populous nation on Earth, accounting for - what, 15% of the entire population of the world? Something like that, anyway. Use categories, please. Just zis Guy you know? 20:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Categories are better for this sort of thing. BrokenSegue 20:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep rename to list of notable Indians Jcuk 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, close to unmaintainable. Dr Zak 21:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename as List of notable Indians. Lists are useful and do things that categories can't. It seems unlikely to me that Wikipedia has articles on all the notable Indians that exist or have existed. This allows us to develop a list of people that we need to create articles on as well as people who already have articles. Capitalistroadster 00:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, make a category if you need it so much. Danny Lilithborne 01:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or turn it into a category, as above BigDT 02:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are many other similar articles, including List of English people, List of Nigerians, List of Spaniards, etc. However, List of Indians by state already exists, so maybe they should be merged. I disagree with categorization, for the reasons given above by capitalistroadster. --Joelmills 03:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless I get to add myself. I dont see why not, really, nothing in the article says I can't. Hornplease 05:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepI think it needs to be cleaned up drastically but I would not like it to be deleted.It does contain some very useful information and it may be the first point of contact for anyone wishing to know about the Indian notables.(Vr 08:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
  • KeepWhy consider this for deletion?It does contain useful information and for people like me non -Indians quite informative(KenClarke 08:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
  • KeepBy all means clean this up but I would not like this to be deleted.(AnneOswald 08:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
    • Comment I think these last three votes might be all the same person. Can an admin check, please? Danny Lilithborne 01:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I've blocked KenClarke and AnneOswald as sockpuppets of Vr. There is a checkuser pending, but I think the contribution evidence is enough. Petros471 12:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I did not know what sockpuppet means until I read this.I can assure you that I have only one account;infact I had another VR which was inadvertant at the time of my signing.I use the Institutional internet at teh university where I am a postdoc and had not heard of Aneosawald or kenneth clarke.(Vr 05:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC))
It is now checkuser confirmed. If you wish to discuss this further please message me on my talk page. Petros471 10:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per arguments in similar lists. -- Hirudo 14:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unmaintainable list which is redundant to a category. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to List of Indians by state i.e. keep and tidy, but in this case there already is a more managable format available. // Habj 01:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Far too large a list to properly maintain. Zaxem 11:21, 17 May 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.