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. Courcelles 23:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Andorrans[edit]

List of Andorrans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inclusion criteria of "List of Andorrans or celebrities related with Andorra" are vague. The entire list is original research, and there are many red-linked entries. If all unreferenced entries were removed per WP:LISTPEOPLE, the page would be empty. -- Selket ^Talk 03:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC) -- Selket ^Talk 03:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nom makes good arguments. excessive red links in a people's list is not advisable, not to mention do we now create List of Chinese? LibStar (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No we don't, LibStar, because China has had a lot more people. By contrast, if somebody were to create, say, List of people from Suzhou, that would be just fine. Morenoodles (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, possibly speedy keep. I'm very confused by this nomination, and I fail to see any valid deletion rationale here. Are you claiming that it is unverifiable whether anyone is an Andorran or not? Unsourced at present ≠ OR, particularly not when the information may be sourced in the subjects' own articles, just not in this list at present. The standard is verifiable, not verified. Red links are for entries that merit articles but do not have them, so their presence is not a reason for deleting the list, but one of the base functions of lists. And do you intend to eventually nominate for deletion the Category:Andorran people category structure, and all articles in Category:Lists of people by nationality? I'm aware of no consensus against these, nor any discussion establishing that the proper way to fix such verifiable lists is to blank them and/or nominate them for deletion, but given Selket's recent contributions, it seems like he's starting a broad campaign against indexes of article subjects by nationality. To what end and purpose, I cannot tell. postdlf (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't typically respond to prevent back-and-forth type arguments, but you asked some good questions. I have no problem with the categories as each entry in the category must be backed up by a reliable source on the subject's page. I plan on nominating only those lists that have no sourced entries. Those that have sourced entries I've been leaving. For example, see this edit where the sourced entries remained. I'm only nominating those that have no sourced entries whatsoever. Entries must be sourced or they are WP:OR -- this is especially problematic for lists that contain links to real people. Finally, classification of redlinked articles as "Andorran" cannot be backed up by a source on the article, because there isn't an article. -- Selket ^Talk 14:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there's no problem with the categories, then there shouldn't be a problem with the lists, because if it can be verified within a subject's article to justify a category tag, it can be verified within a list to justify the article link. I'm not going to quibble over whether or not it's sufficient for a list's entries to only be sourced within the articles listed rather than in the list itself (I've seen opinions both ways), but obviously if the articles have sources verifying their nationality, those can simply be migrated over to the list.

      Regarding redlinks, some recent discussions I've seen have held that at most, redlinks should be removed only if there is no source for it. I don't think the usefulness of redlinks for identifying needed articles can be overestimated. If you're confident that a redlink is not for a notable person, or a person who fits the list's inclusion criteria, then by all means remove it. But if you simply don't know, then leave it be, search for a source, or maybe move it to the talk page for consideration. But I see no compelling reason to blank redlinks from lists of people by nationality. If they're living, a statement of nationality is at least not ordinarily a BLP concern, and if they're dead then we can take our time no matter what.

      "Entries must be sourced or they are WP:OR"--that's simply not true at all. Whether a statement of fact is original research is not determined by whether it is presently sourced or not, but by whether it can be sourced, and it's definitely not true that it is OR to repeat a statement in a list that is sourced in the linked article but not in the list.

      So again, I see no valid deletion rationale. All of the problems you have identified are fixable. postdlf (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Perfectly reasonable list. Any issues around verifiability can be fixed by editing.--Michig (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A perfectly appropriate list for which clear prior consensus is that retention is appropriate. The underlying articles appear to have appropriate sources that can readily be added to this article. Alansohn (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, of course, as Michig says. Snowstorm coming? Morenoodles (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as already shown there is no valid reason given for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy/Snow Keep Is Andorra a notable place? Definitely. Are there notable people from there? Sure. Maybe there are people on the list who are not, but that does not mean the article needs to go. Eauhomme (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.