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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of widows and widowers[edit]

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

A highly WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Just because someone's spouse has died doesn't mean it has to be tracked into one article. None of this is even sourced. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This will be a forever incomplete list, as I'd probably say that the amount of widows and widowers with articles on Wikipedia are staggering- probably in the thousands at the very least. Not only would that make for a difficult page to create, but the article would take forever to load. This isn't even touching the issue that the page so far seems to focus on American and European people only and looks to be focusing on fairly recent people as well. I don't know that this would even make for a good category for the same reason, as we'd have to start slicing it down to "American widows" and so on, and even then there are issues. What if you have an American woman who married a Russian man? Would she be an American widow? A Russian widow? (Probably American, but still- people would debate this.) It's just indiscriminate, like Snuggums said. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, we don't have categories like "Married American actors", after all. We do have Category:Married couples, but that seems to be for articles about people who are notable for working in a pair. That brings up the issue of what would happen if we had a category for widow/ers and had a page where it's about the couple. I understand what they're trying to do here and if there was an easier way to go about doing it I'd support it, but I just don't see where this is really feasible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as way, way, way too indiscriminate. Lots of married people would qualify, especially in the days before commonplace divorces. Plus it's rarely a significant distinction, other than "black widows/widowers" who murder their spouses. List of divorced people or list of blondes would be just as useless. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT as way too broad and indiscriminate a topic. Sideways713 (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information that could never possibly be improved to be of encyclopaedic value. As for the list itself, the first thing that came to mind when thinking of entries was notable widows or widowers in fiction, which doesn't appear to be at all representative of what's there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete A list of every notable person whose spouse predeceased them is wildly indiscriminate. Mangoe (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:INDISCRIMINATE says all we need to know for this AfD. Would we want a list of married persons? Unmarried persons? Divorced persons? Remarried persons? No, no, no, no and, uh, no. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a caveat. As currently constituted the list makes no sense. In fairness, though, it should be noted that the creator of the list had a more specific purpose in mind: as initially drafted, the idea was to make a list of "list of widows and widowers whose widowhood contributed to their notability", and among the first entries were people like Maria Elena Holly and Mary Bono Mack whose notability was (arguably) due to their representing the legacy of a famous spouse. [1] This was changed a couple of years later to the present unmanageable criterion. [2] But even as originally defined, I have doubts the list could be well-managed. How you decide if someone is "notable for being a widow(er)"? Our usual answer would be to require each entry to have a reliable source making that specific statement about the subject. But beyond a few obvious cases like Mrs. Holly , I don't know that we are likely to find such clear statements. Even someone like Billie Jean Horton, best known for her energetic efforts on behalf of the legacy of her two famous husbands, also had a career of her own. This is even more of an issue for political widow(er)s: Mary Bono Mack, for example, was certainly known first as Sonny's wife, but then (like many other political spouses) she was repeatedly elected in her own right and spent 14 years in Congress, it's not obvious that she belongs on this list, although a more specific List of politicians who succeeded their late spouse in office might work (preferably someone can come up with a less awkward title). If someone wants to make a case for restoring the original criteria, I'd be willing to listen, but I'm skeptical. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any notable person who dies after his/her spouse can potentially be included on this list, so it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate list. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2014 (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.