Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People

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 keep. John254 16:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People

People (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article has no useful content (although it was created in December 2005) and is more suited to a dictionary entry. There has already been a discussion to this effect on the article's talk page Old Moonraker 21:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment / Question I'm sure there must be some way to expand this topic - perhaps something about different ethnicities, or the distribution of people across the world? Or are things like that already present in other articles? -Panser Born- (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• These topics are covered in Ethnic group, Migration and others.--Old Moonraker 06:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. In that case, I guess it should be deleted as a dictionary definition. Perhaps it doesn't have much of a basis for expansion after all. -Panser Born- (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

After seeing the rewritten page, I'd have to change my vote to a Keep. -Panser Born- (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It seems that such article should be in WP. This is different from Human or Nation. However, the article must be improved. For example, it claims: "Religion, philosophy, and science do not show or represent modes and aspects of inquiry which attempt to investigate and understand the nature, behavior, and purpose of people." This is wrong. Some sources are certainly needed.Biophys 06:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. General articles are also useful in WP. --Moumine70 14:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Human. Seems pretty commonsensical to me. Recury 13:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This should be a "fancy" disambiguation page with more explanation than usual. "People" may well refer to the worst weed species, considered generically; but it may also refer to tribes, nations, or ethnic groups. There are specialized senses that readers should be directed to, like People of the Book or The Senate and People of Rome. All of these differing senses preclude a simple redirect, and suggest avenues for expansion. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have expanded the page with a couple paragraphs about law. Other topics that probably ought to be mentioned here here include People's Republics, people of color, and perhaps populism. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• At this stage, the page has been almost entirely rewritten. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as an 'enhanced' disambig page with brief descriptions of what it's redirecting to, as (sort of) per Smerdis of Tlon. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with disambig page to Human and People Magazine meshach 05:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• The page has been improved a great deal since I started this process and no longer merits deletion. Thanks to all contributors! --Old Moonraker 17:20, 12 April 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.