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. bd2412 T 03:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of female justice ministers[edit]

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

This looks like an example of "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" (see WP:NOTDIR). Being a justice minister and being a woman are two disconnected things, so this combination has no encyclopedic value. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have a whole category structure on this, Category:Women government ministers by portfolio. postdlf (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Such lists are obviously "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations". The fact that someone made several of them does not mean automatically they are in accordance with the policy. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't present an "argument". Don't be so damn eager to jump on someone, rather than doing your own due diligence to see what kind of relevant content we have that may represent common practice. The categories were created at different times by different editors over a span of years. Maybe some make sense to have, maybe all, maybe none, but clearly what is "obvious" to you is not so to others. postdlf (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did not "jump on you", I just gave a civilized answer to your comment. My viewpoint is that the "common practice" is recorded in our policies. WP:Policies page says: "Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-agreed practices". Thus, there cannot be "common practice" that contradicts a policy, because policy is a common practice. The only question here is whether "female justice ministers" is a "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization". In my opinion, being a woman and being a justice minister are two categories that have no connection with one another whatsoever. The fact that someone is a woman does not make her better or worse or more important minister. If we say that this kind of cross-categorization is acceptable, then someone may create lists of "black justice ministers", "blonde justice ministers", "gay justice ministers", "disabled justice ministers", end so on, there's not limit. I don't see encyclopedic value of such lists. Maybe someone thinks that female ministers are something so exotic that warrants a list article, but I think that such position is sexist. Having a female minister should be as normal as having a male minister. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, you jumped to shooting down an argument I hadn't made. Normally when people go out of their way to frame their comment as a "comment", it's not presented as an argument for a position but rather an observation to help frame the discussion. Responding with "OSE" even if I had advocated to keep is also a regrettably facile and dismissive response to relevant consideration of the wider impact of a nomination...particularly given that these categories are really the same content in a different format, and not even "other stuff", let alone unrelated. Legalistic invocation of policy also doesn't give us license to ignore that practice may inform us how the community actually interprets and applies it, whether we individually think those interpretations are constructive.
        We've also seen enough [demographic]-[occupation] AFDs and CFDs over the past decade and a half here to know that none of what you've said so far touches upon why such list/category intersections of sex and office have often been created and defended (protip: it never has anything to do with "shoulds" or anything starting with "in my opinion"). So I'd recommend you focus on the more fruitful avenue of why this particular intersection does not merit a list, rather than wasting everyone's time with a very abstract and ahistorical ipse dixit. postdlf (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many lists of a similar nature, these are standard topics. Demographic-occupation topic is legitimate. Montanabw^(talk) 07:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- most have articles, and such classification by gender, while not probably something one would think of as *especially* important, could be useful to the readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep standard article type. It doesn't make sense to dsrupt a stucture like this by challenging a single item. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Montana said, Demographic-occupation lists are legitimate. Also, WP:Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. should keep in mind that OSE is an essay not a writ of policy to be enforced. I think the second sentence of the the essay explains it. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:06, 7 October 2017 (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.