Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrities who have changed their name (2nd nomination)

List of celebrities who have changed their name

Article was up for deletion back in april. The result was no consensus. Many of the keeps wanted to see improvement, as far as I can tell nothing has improved. And I would like to highlight this statement from the first debate "The info is already in the articles. If I want to look up Gerald Fords original name I'll just look in his article. "Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics"". I personally think the is way to broad of an inclusion criteria and the subjects may be notable but the topic is not notable. Ridernyc 12:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete isnt this a list, like a directory of sorts? I am trying to find ways that a college student could use this article, and I can't. If article can be improved somehow I will change to keep, but I agree with ridernyc, and I think I did comment previously on this list with the comment above, or I might have thought the same. msg me if the article changes so I can review my opinion. Ta T--T3Smile 12:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Could be useful if sourced, but I've concerns about how manageable it could be, or encyclopediac. • Lawrence Cohen 13:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep in principle I agree with nom. but alas it passes WP:INTERESTING for me. JJL 13:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You might have noticed that that is from a page called "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". —Verrai 14:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I am aware of that, and my "alas" was meant to indicate that I knew I was using an argument-to-avoid argument. However, regarding the comment below, I disagree that this is irrelevant--hence those arguments are to be avoided rather than being disallowed. JJL 14:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The "Arguments to avoid" page is merely an essay, stating the views of a few editors, and is not a guideline or a Wikipedia policy. Please mention that it is an essay whenever it is cited. Edison 19:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary list of unconnected and unrelated items. Triviacruft. Arguments about being "useful" or "interesting" are irrelevant.
CommentHow is it any more or less connected than any other list? What makes being born in the same city, or going to the same school a "related" list, and this not? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete —Verrai 14:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, replace with category. The info is quite interesting, but it's not really suited to an article. It seems much more suitable to just categorize the articles for notable people who have changed their name. Rob T Firefly 14:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If necessary, make into a category. If people are interested in former names, they can just scroll through the pages in the category and read it in first sentence of the article. Spellcast 15:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wont that just lead to the CFD crew calling for it's deletion with the argument of "delete, replace with a list", and so on? Lugnuts 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If one format had to be picked, it would have to be the category. Besides, the list is just way too broad. Spellcast 15:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest making the category, being sure to leave a note about this AfD and a link to this discussion on its talk page to hold off the CfD crowd. Rob T Firefly 16:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It offers more information than what is available in a category. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The World Almanac generally contains a list like this, to which many of the entries can be sourced. I agree with Richard that a list can provide more info than a category. A list is also, FWIW, more fun to browse through. Zagalejo^^^ 16:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or categorize. WP:NOT indiscriminate. Manageability could be a problem. Not sure if there is encyclopedic interest. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you explain how making it a category would make the information suddenly become "discriminate". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, a category will only be able to contain people notable enough for their own articles. Additionally, categories aren't indiscriminate gatherings of new information, they are simply an organizational tool for the information we already have. Rob T Firefly 03:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

exactly in order to be in a catagory an article should have already established it's own notability. On a list you nee to establish notabilty for every entry.Ridernyc 09:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the people on this list are actually celebrities, then we can assume that they pass notability guidelines. Zagalejo^^^ 18:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is exactly what lists are for, as defined by WP:LIST. Lists and categories complement each other; they are not intended as an either/or alternative. We're bound to get WP:NOT as an excuse for deletion of any and all lists, but this list clearly defines who belong here. Alansohn 18:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds that the changing of names is so ubiquitous among celebrities -- actors, musicians, etc. -- that we would probably have to list a good 90% of the people in the public eye. Plus the criteria of the list also indicates it includes women who changed their names through marriage, which was a completely NN and common occurrence until it fell into disfavor (in some circles) 20 or so years ago. I could see a list of celebrity women who changed their names through marriage being a viable list because it hasn't happened very often. You had folks like Roseanne Barr going by Roseanne Arnold for awhile ... but usually they don't change their professional name. Angelina Jolie didn't change her name to Angelina Thornton when she was married to Billy-Bob, at least not professionally. The only way I can support such a list is if it were broken down into very specific categories such as that. 23skidoo 20:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it's encylopedic. Though some may think this is silly, reference books like the World Almanac actually do keep track of things like this, and yes, they do list celebrities (and their original names parenthetically) in alphabetical order. The currency of Wikipedia gives it an advantage over what will be in the 2008 almanacs. Mandsford 22:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not "indiscriminate," since to be included, one must first be a celebrity and second have changed his/her name. Such a list is found in common popular reference works such as the "World Almanac." It is maintainable because if a celebrity such as Roy Roger (born Leonard Slye) is not in the list, he can be added, and if someone who is not a celebrity is in the list, he can be removed, by the simple process of editing. The birth name is listed in the main article on the individual. The normal garden variety names with which celebrities began life are of encyclopedic interest to readers. Edison 19:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I was hoping there would be article improvement, but alas not, and I'll maintain my original stance. Wikipedia is not an almanac, it is an encyclopedic reference. Should there be a great revision of such article, pls message me and I will revisit again. tick tick tick. T--T3Smile 12:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here's another idea: List of celebrities who used to wear braces. Sound like a good list? I DIDN'T THINK SO EITHER. Burntsauce 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]