Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who are left-handed

List of people who are left-handed

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Essentially an article that has a prior history of being deleted as unmaintainable listcruft, based on a largely non-defining characteristic shared by 10% of everyone. Just with another slightly different name. Past experience of this article shows it usually becomes a snowballing pile of unsourced, or poorly sourced, names of no practical or verifiable use to anyone. This article was created in May with the best of intentions, but is already heading the same way.

See the following for past deletions of similarly named list articles;

Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Essentially a nomination that is just WP:CRUFTCRUFT. The assertion that the page is poorly sourced is blatantly false as there are over 100 excellent sources which demonstrate that the topic easily passes WP:LISTN. And there are plenty more sources out there, including entire books on the topic such as Left-Handed History of World. If there are problems with particular entries (which the nomination doesn't detail) then they are best addressed per our policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.". Andrew🐉(talk) 20:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination — passingly entertaining but unmaintainable listcruft. Doubtlessly there are specific professions and activities where left-handedness is relevant, but this list is far too general. The topic of left-handedness is notable and deserves an article, but we don't need this heap of trivia. XOR'easter (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that, yes, the page has footnotes. Even trivia can be referenced, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia. XOR'easter (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLOT does not provide against what this list offers. The guideline clearly enumerates four cases of indiscriminate collections of information. The relevant section is number 3, which states Wikipedia does not use excessive lists of unexplained statistics, but this page is neither unexplained nor statistics. Each entry provides a link to an extant page and further describes who the person is. The page has a clear structure and its purpose is well described in the lead section. There are also notes throughout to explain minutia. JustinMal1 (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a patently absurd recreation of an article overwhelmingly deleted twice. The English Wikipedia has 1.5 million biographies. Of course few are so notable as to have their handedness recorded (precisely because this is so trivial and arbitrary!), but this is not a defining characteristic as to have an article that could hypothetically be 150,000 entries long. Reywas92^Talk 22:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

150K is nothing special. We already have lists larger than that including species and minor planets. And plenty of huge lists of people including men; women; Americans; English; engineers; writers; Smiths; Jones; &c. To arbitrarily decide that left-handers are not worthy of consideration does not seem neutral. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link is a category – irrelevant. The third, fourth, fifth, seventh, and eigth all redirect from "List of" to "Lists of", breaking them down into to manageable topics – List of aerospace engineers is actually a defining characteristic! The last two are disambiguation pages – also irrelevant. The sixth should likewise be converted to a "Lists of": Why should List of English people#Actors and actresses have a completely arbitrary selection of 135 out of the 3,000+ in Category:20th-century English male actors and alone? No, left-handedness is not a defining characteristic and they are not worthy of being in a massive, arbitrary list. Can you cut your bullshit? Reywas92^Talk 02:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are not irrelevant because WP:CLN explains that categories and lists are comparable and complementary; just different techniques for doing much the same thing. The breakdown into sublists is natural when you get many entries and this is exactly what is done in this list too – it is divided into sections in a similar way. The largest sections are those for which left-handedness is especially significant – baseball players like Babe Ruth; boxers like Marvin Hagler; and tennis players like Martina Navratilova. So, the list in question is neither arbitrary nor unstructured; it's exactly the same as all those other examples. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, cut the bullshit. CLN does not say "because one subject is categorized, another unrelated subject must be in a list" – of course you're conveniently neglecting that WP:CAT says "essential—defining—characteristics of a topic", which handedness is not, and WP:LISTCRIT asks "If this person/thing/etc. weren't X, would it reduce their fame or significance?", and these people are not famous for this trivia. Just because handedness may be significant for boxers does not mean it is significant for authors. Reywas92^Talk 20:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For much of history, writing has been especially difficult for left-handed people -- see A history of left-handed writing, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence that these people were subjected to being "train[ed] out of the ‘defect'", then include it on the relevant page. This has nothing to do with a context-free list and is already discussed in the bias article. Reywas92^Talk 03:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT as overly broad. Ten times worse than List of blondes. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SALAT states that overly broad lists can be mitigated by sectioning, as this list is by occupation. The page is no different than other lists of arbitrary associations such as List of people from Italy and complies fully with the guidelines laid out in SALAT. JustinMal1 (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the references clearly show this is something notable enough that reliable sources cover it. Dream Focus 10:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:I don't like it is no reason to delete it. I agree with user:Andrew Davidson and User:Dream Focus. WP:Preserve and WP:Improve. Clearly meets WP:GNG. The article is especially important, since left-handers suffer from a bias that is well known and significant -- we even have an article about it Bias against left-handed people. Indeed, left handed tendencies has particular relevance for fencers/Swordsmen, boxers, football players, cricketeers, Tennis players, Basketball players, Musicians and baseball players. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Relevance in certain sports does not justify any relevance for actors, fictional characters, or comedians, nor does having trouble with scissors and firearms have any relevance to politicians, royalty, and astronauts. The article does link three (dubious and arbitrary) subarticles for these topics. Reywas92^Talk 20:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Left-handedness is very important for baseball pitchers and batters, and presumably the same applies to cricket. Boxing, fencing and some other sports also qualify, but I fail to see how being left-handed has any significant effect in association football (unless you count Maradona's infamous [left] hand of God), curling, darts, etc. One day, political correctness may go amok, and people might demand that a movie about Leonardo da Vinci star a left-handed actor, but until that black day, a blanket pass is simply not warranted. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not aware I said anything about not liking it, or otherwise. My reasons for nominating are exactly as stated. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because the list seems to be less relevant than other pages does not mean it should be deleted. This page is viewed around 200 times per day on average and spiked on National Left-Handers Day, showing that it represents an important reference for left-handed people and further, improves Wikipedia. Per WP:NOTPAPER and in agreement with user:Andrew Davidson, User:Dream Focus, and User:7&6=thirteen, I vote to keep the page. JustinMal1 (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Number of page hits per day is not really an informative measure of notability or lack thereof. XOR'easter (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. These types of pages are what keep Wikipedia fun and interesting to newcomers. Once again, I'm falling back on WP:NOTPAPER. This page represents something to people, deleting it means stripping that away from those who view and enjoy it. I don't think it should be deleted just because precedent makes it so. There have been tangible improvements to this iteration from previous ones which negate the parallel between them. JustinMal1 (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all active users of the previous two AFDs: Pax:Vobiscum, Peterkingiron, Tagishsimon, Iridescent, Alpha 4615, Bfigura, TenPoundHammer, Escape Orbit, Magioladitis, Raven42, Finngall, Pedro, Lilac Soul, Faithlessthewonderboy. Reywas92^Talk 20:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That is canvassing. You want to delete the article, others disagree, so you pinged people from discussions that happened 12 to 13 years ago. Dream Focus 23:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. User:Reywas92, Canvas Blatant at that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm well aware of this page, which says "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Section Appropriate notification includes "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". There is absolutely nothing wrong with this common practice, so piss off, both of you. Participants in these overwhelming consensuses (upheld at DRV) have a right to know !voter JustinMal1 above blatantly overturned it by himself by recreating this. Reywas92^Talk 03:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page with good intentions of bringing back a list of notable left-handed people in a way that complied with Wikipedia guidelines. Previous iterations of similar lists were not well cited and redlinked. This page solves many of the issues other pages were deleted for and it isn't prudent to delete this page just because other, worse versions of it, were deleted. Comparing them as perfect equals disregards the improvements and alterations which make this page better. JustinMal1 (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False equivalence. 'Nuf said. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least until the page can be auto-generated and maintained as a WP:Category. Seems like it'd be easy to run through all these entries and associate them with a category label, and then this page gets automatically managed. Adding the references here to the relevant pages would be a plus. jxm (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are for defining characteristics. There is even less rational for a category than there is for a list. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was one of the users pinged above due to my participation in a previous AfD. The current incarnation of the article appears well-sourced and well-written. So, is the topic encyclopedic? Reviewing the AfD from 2007, it looks like at the time I felt it was not. Thirteen years later, I'm less sure. If the article could make the case that the handedness of those listed was in some way an important unifying characteristic, I'd be inclined to argue keep. Unfortunately, the article doesn't really do that. Is left-handedness in the general population significant enough to warrant this list? I think it might be too broad, and that the topic is possibly best addressed with more specificity, e.g. List of southpaw stance boxers, List of left-handed quarterbacks, Left-handed specialist, etc. But the inclusionist in me can see this list being useful to readers, as long as it's properly maintained. I think XOR'easter and Dream Focus both make strong, succinct points. The closing admin can consider this the softest possible "keep" if the decision is razor-thin, but I don't feel strongly one way or the other. Best, faithless (^speak) 21:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]