Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of childless people

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of childless people

An impossible list. It would include almost every Pope, almost every saint, and every child on Wikipedia. Zoe 23:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• No need to include THAT well-known facts, or at least we can link to the categories. The list should be limited to actors, politicians and celebrities, or to people who are childless by choice Pictureuploader 23:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; pointless Erwin Walsh
• Delete per nominator. Jaxl | talk 23:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh my. Delete, unmaintainable list- the first time I've ever said that. CanadianCaesar 23:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator Soltak 00:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as List of dead people without descendants. -Hmib 00:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? -Splash 02:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does that resolve the concerns I listed in my nomination? Zoe 04:03, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fine make it list of famous dead people without descendants. That should narrow it down to, what, a few hundred? -Hmib 05:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, no. As I said, it would cover thousands, yay, millions of people. Anyone who died as a child, most Popes, most saints, etc. Zoe 05:17, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • There are less than a hundred popes, just a few thousand saints, only a few hundred of whom were actually well-known, and unless a (dead) child is notable somehow, he/she wouldn't be included. -Hmib 05:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only a few thousand entries? You got worried for a while there... / Peter ^Isotalo 02:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously. -Splash 02:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete , although really, it can't ever be more than a few billion entries, can it? Wikibofh 05:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable list —Wahoofive (talk) 06:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Zoe's list is very, very summarized. It would probably include half of our inventory of person articles. No redirects. Just get rid of it... / Peter ^Isotalo 02:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Childless people don't have enough in common to be worth grouping. Osomec 11:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Unmaintainable. Not to mention potential arguments about whether people whose children died before them, therefore leaving them without heirs ("without descendants"), would qualify. - Skysmith 11:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Should be a category if it is worthwhile, being childless is not in itself very notable.--Gorgonzilla 18:03, 18 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.