Wiki143:Articles for deletion/List of Sikhs

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 of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 23:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

List of Sikhs

I came across a debate in wikipedia vfd where the conclusion seemed to be against retaining unmaintainable lists. It is my belief this list is one of them. For example, what is the criterion for someone to be included in this list? Manik Raina 05:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• • As stated , the sikhs are a very clearly defined group, a page like this gives very little information to the reader of this page that a person is a practicing sikh. It is visually quite apparent. Manik Raina 05:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• They need to be notable and have the Sikh religion? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Plenty of lists that could be called unmaintainable have been kept, such as List of Roman Catholics. This list should be kept along with all the other religion based lists. NoSeptember 13:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anything that goes "List of Buddhists," "List of Japanese," "List of Christians," "List of Hindus" etc should be deleted on sight. It's intrinsically a ridiculous thing to write (especially when there isn't even a "notable" criterion as evidenced by the title), is impossible to maintain with any degree of accuracy, is practically impossible to verify, and serves little purpose that may be thought of as encyclopedic.—Encephalon | ^ζ  13:45:58, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
  • Comment, this may be a good approach in general if you don't like these lists, but we have already voted to keep List of Catholics and List of Jews. If we pick off just the minor religions (like Sikhs) we are showing a Western bias, and being a member of a minor religion (if you are living in the West) is more noteworthy. NoSeptember 18:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sikhs are a reasonably well defined group, and it isn't likely to become unmanageable. Bhoeble 14:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Encephalon, who nails it on the head. Nandesuka 16:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agreed, we really don't need this kind of thing--I-2-d2 16:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this doesn't serve any useful purpose and either requires constant work or will be out of date. NoSeptember's comment is valid, but I would take the conclusion in the other direction - don't keep List of Sikhs, delete List of Catholics. PeteVerdon 19:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. "List of Jews" was kept; how is this any different? CDThieme 20:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps that list needs to go as well. If a person is a jew and is noteworthy, his page will tell everyone he is jewish. Manik Raina 05:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • So a user looking for noteworthy jewish people would simply have to hit "random article" until they the right one? Kappa 05:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if Catholics and Jews can stay so can Sikhs.Gateman1997 21:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps that list needs to go as well. Manik Raina 05:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete far too broad to be useful, and the other religion lists too, they're just as useless. -Splash 21:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, like the other religion lists. Kappa
• Keep as per No September. Trollderella 16:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - if other religions can have this list, why can't Sikhism? I mean there is even a List of mixed-race people, how is that relevant? Does an Egyptian/Saudi child count as mixed race? What about a Anglo-Bulgarian? I think if you're going to delete this, there should be a larger VfD of the other religious and race lists. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 07:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per NoSeptember and the keeping of "List of Catholics" and "List of Jews". Wikipedia shouldn't discriminate and favor one religion over another. --FuriousFreddy 11:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

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.