Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people known as The Great

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of people known as The Great[edit]

This list looks at first sight to be encyclopaedic. But look again. This classification "known as The Great" is as significant as "known as The Green". It's an arbitrary linkage by a non characteristic, and is thus indiscriminate. Thus it is not a valid part of Wikipedia. It is interesting, it may even be useful, to the extent of doing a kid's homework for them, but it is not a valid way of cataloguing an encyclopaedia Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not an arbitary linkage and it by a known characteristic. Admittedly, some know characteristics such as 'the Bald' or 'the Fat' are not notable characteristics, but 'the Great' definitely is. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have difficulty with List of people from Akron, Ohio or List of HIV-positive people or List of Digimon. I suppose that reflects my biases. This list got 7,303 views last month. People seem to like lists. Not sure they do much harm. Is there a policy or guidelines on lists? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those referred to by multiple reliable and independent sources as "The Great" are outside the ordinary and thus notable, so it seems encyclopedic to have this article. Similarly, if multiple reliable and independent sources call people "The Terrible," "The Incompetent,", "The Bald" "The Inadequate Wine Steward," or whatever, it seems appropriate to include a list. Each member of the list should have the requisite references in his/her own article, or references should exist which could be the basis for such an article.It should not be a matter of the opinions of Wikipedia editors, because that would constitute WP:Original research. (Now off to find reliable sources about "Gerard, the Inadequate Wine Steward"). Edison (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We had a similar debate recently for which I can't track the debate down. But the same reasons apply and the outcome of that debate should be applied to this page.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're possibly thinking of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 14#Template:Rulers known as "the Great" and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 22#Template:Rulers known as "the Great". Uncle G (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work to refine its scope (which seems to be rulers and so should say so). It seems helpful in assisting navigation to articles about great rulers and so should be kept. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Kings who were termed the Great was actually redirected here for being a duplicate article. Uncle G (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps it should be moved to List of rulers titled The Great to be more specific — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list is not directly analogous to the template discussion mentioned above. This list provides a central "node" to group such articles, while the template distributed that information on the articles themselves. From "Peter the Great" a reader is unlikely to want to travel "sideways" to other Greats, but a reader entering at the list is likely to want to travel to multiple Greats; I suppose the difference is a matter of directionality. Anyway, "Great" would seem a quite notable appellation and a list of those so noted seems reasonable. I'd say the nominator's statement that this list is "interesting" is more than sufficient refutation of his claim of its "invalidity"; we aren't limited by space so we can include multiple alternative catalogues. – 74 01:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inferior to a category, which would have the advantages of being self-updating and reducing the risk of people adding frivolous entries. The list should not contain redlinks as it should only have notable people. Stifle (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2009 (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.