Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American copy editors

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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of American copy editors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A list with just six people on, all of whom are also included in a similarly named category. Superfluous with no evidence of why this should have an individual page. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTDUP. The category has 12 people included at present, so I don't know why the nominator is believing this list could only contain six when it can obviously be expanded. The list is also already annotated with a description for each entry, clearly a function the category cannot perform. postdlf (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of those twelve have their own notability issues, or copy editing is a tiny part of their career (for example Hugh Hefner. I think realistically there are no more than 3-4 notable subjects which doesn’t make a notable list. Could potentially be selectively merged into Copy editing or List of American print journalists Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your new arguments would still mean this AFD is at best premature. If an article belongs in the category, it belongs in this list. And so long as applicable articles exist, we are going to list them. If most of the category’s entries get deleted, then you might have an argument that there are too few to merit a list. But that hasn’t happened. postdlf (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too much grouping people by a non-notable part of their career. This can if need be be a category, but lists of professions where the vast majority in the profession are not notable serve no purpose.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're actually reversing the category and list standards. Categories must be WP:DEFINING, lists do not have to be. Nor is there a requirement that "the vast majority in the profession [be] notable", only that there are enough notable entries to merit a list. postdlf (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that’s not correct. If the subject is a BLP, it must be notable to be included on a list, as per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Non-notable BLPs must be removed. I will do some further work to assess the notability of the subjects and potentially nominate some of them for deletion as well. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amending some of the above as I misread the comment. But my point about the notability of some of the subjects still stands. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, no it doesn't, one because it's irrelevant as no one is advocating that any copy editor who ever lived be included in this (just those who merit articles), and two the guideline you linked to doesn't actually say what you're claiming it says. It certainly is typical (and I think best practice) for lists of people by profession that only notable people are included, but there's no general requirement to remove non-notable people from lists. postdlf (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree. I’ve seen many examples where non-notable people are removed from such lists. But I will leave it to editors to assess how these guidelines apply in this scenario. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP, relative to Category:American copy editors. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant to the category. Copyeditors are not an independently notable profession. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2020 (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.