Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian women

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 delete. --Coredesat 06:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not for lists =of loosely associated topics. While some lists may be useful, "Indian women" is an impossibly broad category. Moonriddengirl 15:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apologies for my own horrible pun. It was truly unintentional, I promise you. blushing --Moonriddengirl 16:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what you mean, there's only about 560 million of them Delete per nom. —gorgan_almighty 16:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious delete: Seriously, could you imagine maintaining this list? It'd be like documenting every Phillies loss. Fantastic pun, by the way. Sidatio 16:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*delete How about a List of everyone, and we all just have to add our own name? Pharmboy 16:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modified my vote to delete or category below. Pharmboy 15:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Wikipedia used to have that list. It was called List of people by name but it was deleted after a very long debate. ●DanMS • Talk 00:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Impossible to maintain this kind of a list, and pointless, to boot. 6thAvenue 16:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Moonriddenbroad. hehehe  :-) --Evb-wiki 17:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This discussion has lost all humor. As with most worthwhile lists, this collection of loosely related articles can be better presented and maintained with a category. --Evb-wiki 16:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment grin --Moonriddengirl 17:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom Harlowraman 17:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Violation of loose list, and collection of internal links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useight (talk • contribs) 19:37, August 2, 2007
• Delete per nom and all above.--Targeman 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment missed the pun at first reading - I like it! :-)

• Delete per nom. Mkdw^talk 20:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As a directory list and non maintainable.--JForget 01:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as a non-maintainable list. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy relist and warn the User:moonwiki for deliberate disrupting the AfD. This cannot be properly discussed while somebody is ranting and raving in this form of filibuster, while simultaneously distorting the formatting of the entire AfD page. CaveatLector^Talk 04:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you can do that?! It's off topic, I know, but I need to consider doing that to the List of Iranian women AfD - how does that get done? Sidatio 16:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As its non- maintainable. Moonriddengirl, though you received a barnstar for this Afd (the first time I saw this on WP), the pun you 'didn't' intend was infact intended by the phrase which followed it- 'no pun intended'. Such statements should be discouraged and are regretted. Please refrain from doing this. KnowledgeHegemony 17:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I assure you that the pun was not intended. I did not realize the pun until I was reading back over the discussion over 20 minutes later, at which point I included the note because I realized what I had inadvertently done and thought that the proper thing to do. Since somebody had already responded to the AfD, I did not think it proper to revise my nom. I do apologize if my unintentional pun hurt anybody's feelings. --Moonriddengirl 17:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment: Also, I suspect the barnstar was for the three hours I spent creating categories for each of the women on that list, not for the nomination. Timing would suggest as much. --Moonriddengirl 18:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The barnstar was for exceptional diplomacy during this debate, coming up with a creative compromise, and taking the time to implement it. Sidatio 19:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and Gentlemen !

It is an important list that shall showcase the incredible range of the achievements of Indian women and shall inspire young omen to be leaders and achievers in their field. The Wikipedia is not only an encyclopedia it is a vast showcase of human diversity as well.

I once again request that this article should not be DELETED. Please let it develop.

With kind regards,

moon 06:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your contribution to this debate, but you haven't addressed any of the issues stated above. —gorgan_almighty 08:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moon, I understand what you are saying but the list in and of itself is not going to do what you would like it to do. The individual articles will contribute to it, if and only if they are read. And they will be found by your target audience even if the list isn't there. And again, this list need not exist in order for the articles to be found. Postcard Cathy 10:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow Wikipedians , Have a heart and broader outlook too ( pun intended ) I am new to Wikipedia and am greatly impressed by lists that constitute it. And I guess there might many more people like me. I say the policy should be flexible enough to accomodate the changing aspirations of the clientele. SO PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS ! Give it a chance. Vive La Wikipedia.Vive La Diversity. moon 10:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think what you're trying to accomplish is probably best done by a category. Categories, lists and boxes explains some of the differences. If you go to each page linked and add [[Category:Indian women]], the pages will be collected alphabetically onto a category page which can be easily referenced by anyone who wants to see the articles Wikipedia has on Indian women. These kinds of lists are difficult to maintain. Look how many redlinked names (names without Wikipedia pages) you already have--information on Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced and easily verifiable. If Wikipedia users have to research the names on your list themselves, it isn't quickly verifiable that they are women of note at all. As a frequent vandal patroller, I can also tell you that people will add their own names or names of friends to your list. It will require quite a lot of upkeep. A category would not. --Moonriddengirl 12:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an excellent compromise. I'm on board to help out with that tonight after work. On a related note, should we consider doing the same with List of Iranian women as well? Sidatio 12:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would think it could work for List of Iranian women as well, if there's consensus. I should think an AfD would need to be launched, with the category as a proposed alternative. Moon, do you think this would satisfy your goals? --Moonriddengirl 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I see your point. But Hope should win over paranoia. I find that like elsewhere Wikipedia too has overwhelmingly more positive contributors than the vandals . Censorship is fine but the best form of discipline is from within and not which is enforced. I have tremendous faith in human beings essential goodness.Wikipedia has just begun , it will ultimately evolve into a Universal Mind that will immensely benefit Humanity. Amen

Anyway let us now sleep. Happy dreams! Goodnight. moon 17:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think broadly speaking Wikipedians come in two categories : those who are content providers and those who are editors and give shape to formats.

I am proud to be one of the former but have a deep respect for people like you who are doing an equally important work. We need to have Mutual Respect for each other.

My strong belief is that certain Wiki Lists are maintained by conscientious and passionate people who have a sense of "emotional ownership" to certain subjects.

This passion and emotional ownership helps in maintaining the quality of the List.

So please let the Lists remain. As a compromise I have removed all the Red entries and henceforth shall include only those persons who already are Wikified.

Salutations from an Indian feminist.

moon 14:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mutual respect aside, you have to understand - this list is inherently unmaintainable. The discussion here isn't meant to be a slight against the Indian people, or an accusation of "unworthy" work. At its core, it's an impressive list. The issue at hand here is that it will most certainly become next to impossible to properly maintain according to Wikistandards. I like the compromise of creating the category "Notable Indian Women". It keeps a tidy list of notable Indian females, and its maintainability dramatically improves because the process becomes more automated. A category page is less likely to be targeted by vandals, whereas a list like this invites sneaky vandalism from people who may not agree with their work (among others). Because of the current size of the list (not to mention its potential to expand exponentially), it would be a full-time job for several editors just to patrol to it. In my opinion, it would be a disservice to these notable individuals to have them so readily exposed to that kind of vandalism threat. I'm sure that's not the intention of the list, but it's an unfortunate byproduct. Sidatio 15:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point appreciated. However I still feel that an impassioned 'owner' coupled with conscientious vigilants like you will ensure that not only will this list survive but also thrive. I am already becoming conscious and protective of my list and this discussion has enhanced my determination to preserve and improve it to Wikistandards. Thank you for giving motivation to a new and enthusiastic wikipedian which to my mind is the essence of the Wikipedian philosophy.

moon 16:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait, I don't think I adequately conveyed my message. I am the LAST person who would have time to do vandal patrol. By all reasonable measurements, I shouldn't even be on Wikipedia - I've got websites to build, contracts to fund, a whole host of extended familial duties, and I'm assuming that I sleep. (I don't know for sure anymore.) There are people who are more dedicated to fighting vandalism, I'm sure, but they also patrol every other page on Wikipedia as well. Also, if you yourself spent all of your time patrolling for vandalism on this list, what about those women who were redlinked? How many of those articles would go unwritten because some persistent snot-nose decided he wanted to surreptitiously redirect Gayatri Devi to point to zoophilia, and you had to patrol the list? And that's just for starters - this list has definite potential to grow into the thousands if left unchecked. At some point, moon, you DO have to sleep and eat!

Your zeal and dedication are admirable, but you would be doing these women a greater service by creating quality articles for those who have yet to have the honor, and using a category list to defend and maintain those articles. It truly seems to be the simplest answer, and the option I advocate, with the utmost of respect to you and your abilities. Sidatio 16:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This conversation is getting a bit sprawling. I have gone through the list in question and categorized every woman born in India or an Indian territory or to Indian parent(s) that I could find. This is the result. I strongly believe this is a better solution than a list, which I do not feel will be easily maintained and do not think fits within the guidelines of Wikipedia based on my understanding of them as per my nom.

Moon, you say that you’ll be very careful, but I don't think this task will be as easy as you might feel. As I went through your list for categorization, I found an entrant who seems to be a man (Suniti Kumar Chatterji, whom I removed) and a mythological character, which I did not, since she is female. You have Saira Mohan listed as a director, when her individual page calls her a model and a writer. You’ve also got several disambiguation pages linked, like Chennamma. You’ve got a lot of people double-listed, particularly in the political sections. Mayawati is listed in three places. Multi-listing is not a problem with categories, but can be with large lists; a great many of your names qualified for more than one category. Again, I’m only pointing this out because a large part of your defense of this page is that you will be vigilant. The challenges will only increase. Categories will allow your target readers to easily find articles on Indian women and appreciate their contributions while at the same time eliminating an impossible list. As I read it, Wikipedia policy specifies that Wikipedia articles are not "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." --Moonriddengirl 20:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think that the authors have made it clear that this is a work in progress, and that they'll be improving it. Just as we Westerners have no acquaintance with Bollywood or with most of the subcontinent, the names on the list aren't household words to us; if they'r famous in their own nation, then a link to that is worthwhile. Many of the comments here seem to be based on the name of the article, not on the concept. Enough of the crap about "Oh, there are 500 million women in India, what will we do if they list every single one, oh my!" I don't know another woman from India besides Indira Gandhi, and maybe Mother Theresa, though she wasn't born there. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it's created by editors from all over the world, and you get things that won't make the regular media. Save the list, ladies. Mandsford 01:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such a fantastic attitude there, champ. No, really, that's the way to enter a conversation. But seriously...

The issue isn't notability - the issue is maintaining it. Perhaps you didn't check out the link above for a previous project of a similar scope: List of people by name. Granted, we're talking about one nation, but it's a nation of nearly a billion people. As Moonriddengirl pointed out, it has already presented challenges to that effect, and will only get worse as time goes on. Why? The list will have to be maintained manually.

Now, if everything is categorized, things become easier. Why? We still have a list of Indian women, but now it's maintained more automatically. It's a list, but more efficient. This makes vandal patrol and copyediting much easier, plus it allows more time to add on notable Indian women - and that's really what it's all about, right? Showcasing notable Indian women?

It's great that you want to rush in like a knight in shining armor, Mandsford. Just try not to look like a surly Don Quixote doing it. :-) Sidatio 01:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ---->More dragons than windmills here, my friend. I generally don't memorize the Wikiprinciples, but consider WP:BIAS, which basically recognizes that the average Wikipedian is young American adult male, generally in his early 20s, and that one has to compensate to some extent. Notwithstanding the biases of young men in general (i.e., they think they know everything already), there's also the bias that comes from growing up on a steady diet of American news. Whether the news is CNN, Fox, CBS, AP, UPI it doesn't matter... it tends to ignore certain parts of the world. Outside of the USA and its neighbors, our news is from Britain and the rest of Europe; Iraq, Israel and the Middle East, Japan, China, Australia and the Phillipines, and that's about it. The average Wikipedia knows little about Africa (jungles, AIDS) or South America (drugs), or, for that matter, India (Taj Mahal). Forget about New Zealand ("isn't that near Australia?") or Indonesia or Pakistan. India has 500 million people, Indonesia has 235 million, Pakistan 150 million and I would wager that you probably can't think of three notable people. It's not your fault if you can't, because you were brought up that way. When they say this is the encylopedia that anyone can edit, they mean anyone. Mandsford 15:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As an adult, cosmopolitan and multilingual editor, I don't see how the fact that you know a country would give you the right to turn Wikipedia into a WP:SOAPBOX for it. And you may just as well turn the argument around - that people from under-represented countries have something to compensate for. And please refrain from presuming that you're dealing with a bunch of pimple-faced, ignorant Yanks. Your comments are quite insulting. --Targeman 15:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Mandsford for seeing my point.* Hope will win over paranoia. I find that like elsewhere Wikipedia too has overwhelmingly more positive contributors than the vandals . I have tremendous faith in human beings essential goodness.Wikipedia has just begun , it will ultimately evolve into a Universal Mind that will immensely benefit Humanity. Amen

I have modelled my list on an existing list of iranian women which was also proposed to be deleted but after a spirited defence has been allowed to continue. I think my list deserves to survive and thrive as well. Vive La Wikipedia !

moon 01:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll be calling that list into question tomorrow on the same grounds. I haven't done so tonight because of other obligations. Sidatio 02:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making and keeping Lists is a universal human trait.

• Keep the Peace. Keep the List. Have Faith!

Thanks though for raising my level of commitment to Wikistandards.

moon 02:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting out of hand. This has nothing to do with "faith" or "peace", or anything else on an emotional level. This has to do with practicality and the guidelines of Wikipedia. Let's set aside the emotional aspect of the argument and view it from a logical standpoint:

• A list of this nature is fatally inefficient. Categorization of the many, many notable Indian women frees more time for editing, would be far easier to patrol, and would be maintained autonomously through the use of templates on the individual pages in the category.
• The arguments for keeping this list fail to address various criteria, and are almost completely based on WP:ILIKEIT.
• A reasonable compromise to deletion has been proffered.

By now, moon, we realize your fervent desire to keep the page you created. However, you have yet to raise an argument to keep the page that is not based on WP:ILIKEIT that can't be met by categorization. I can see that you want to help Indian women. That's noble, but you're not helping them with this list! If you really want to help them, I strongly suggest seeking out the notable ones who don't have articles here, and create them. This list can be maintained automatically, freeing your attentions to apply them where they're needed more. Don't let vanity keep you from that! Sidatio 03:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not vanity, it is my genuine belief to have a list of notable Indian women like so many other lists. When so many other lists are in existence why this sustained insistence to do away with this list. I only see it becoming better with time. As i have been saying that it still a work in progress and shall evolve to very high standards. Can you stop all the lists that are on the Wikipedia ? Sometimes it is better to leave things flower naturally. Too much of staitjacketing is not the idea of Wikipedia. Releasing it from the bureaucratic clutch of a few self righteous editors is that has made Wikipedia the new cyberian Gutenberg press . As a child I always had the desire to own the Encyclpedia Brittanica and edit it my way. The Wikipedia has empowered so many of us as content uploaders and designers. Come lets have faith in the inherent goodness of Wiki users/contributors. Treating them as potential vandals will drastically reduce the popularity of an enterprise like the Wikipedia. It is a Commonwealth and cultural wealth of humanity and not the preserve of a select few who would like to regiment and control it in the name of preserving its sanctity. When the rulebook becomes sacrosanct the trouble starts with any system. Somewhere it is said that " law sharpens the mind by narrowing it". Let the people power flow unrestrained and let the information revolution play out itself in full utterance.".

moon 03:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooookay - that still doesn't address WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#LINK, nor does it vary from the theme of WP:ILIKEIT. It also fails to recognize the fact that the list doesn't truly get deleted - it just becomes better managed. Let's try looking at all of that. Sidatio 04:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated quoting of chapter and verse is proof enough of your closed mind and your self appointed role as gatekeepers to the Wikipedian castle. Not that is bad all the time. It only hurts and is dysfunctional when it scares away genuine and passionate talent from making an entry into a world that they don't fully comprehend in terms of "laws" but are genuine candidates who ought to be encouraged and let in to the bastion for a better future. Please don't scare and shoo me away with all that legalese Sidatio.

Regards

moon 04:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not. --Evb-wiki 04:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this isn't a blog. It's an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias have guidelines. They're not exactly rules, but at some point they need to be addressed - like in AfDs.

I've made my point here. If you care to debate the article on its merits, I'm available. Sidatio 04:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a Castle . It is not the preserve of a select few. It is not a closed system.

It is not a hippy democracy. It is not a regimented society.

It is made of a range of mature and reasonably rational but more flexible people who believe in working together to keep the Wikipedia growing and glowing .

Please Leave the Lists alone.Vive La Wikipedian Spirit.

moon 04:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a FREEencyclopedia it is not a freeENCYCLOPEDIA.

I ain't a lawyer. I am just a passionate Wikipedian.

Long live the Lists. Long live the FREE WIKIPEDIA.

moon 04:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sidatio has been bold enough to concede in a similar attempt to delist the List of Iranian women which also means that List of Indian women also survives intact from a well meaning attempt to delist and categorize it. moon 05:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? I never conceded - I clarified my position. There's a HUGE difference there. I still think both lists should be categorized, rest assured. Please refrain in the future from announcing anything on my behalf. I am perfectly capable of handling that on my own. Sidatio 06:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sorry for that faux pas. But I concede to your attempt to lessen the human effort and become more automated. But we need to strike a balance. Why dont we both have both listing and categorization. Again using Taj Mahal as a metaphor we can appreciate the beauty of its constituent structures as well view its pristine beauty as a whole.

Regards.

moon 06:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy defeats the purpose of efficiency. The categorization itself is a compromise, and already done. The consensus at present is to delete this article. The list itself, however, lives on as a category and a host of appropriate subcategories. The difference between the two (at the risk of repeating myself into oblivion) is that the category is automatically maintained, while the list is not.

The facts are this: Concerns about certain policies here have not been addressed. Also, there are serious concerns about listcruft, as a list about notable women from a country with 1/6 of the world's population is inherently unmaintainable - like the List of Europeans was. Address those properly, and we may have grounds to keep this article. Irrelevant allegory won't get the job done in that department, I'm afraid.

I'm done with this discussion until and unless the above are addressed. I will, however, continue to monitor this page to make sure nothing is improperly attributed to me. Sidatio 06:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Coexistence of Beauty and Utility is possible. The beauty of true debates and discussions is that we earn each others respect. Speaking for myself, I have been enriched by this discussion and will hope the same from my friends opposed to the idea of lists.

On this conciliatory note I sign off.

moon 06:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to interrupt your highly poetic and dramatic exchange, moon and Sidatio. Moon, it is impressive that at your age you still have so much faith in people. But surely you must realize that anonymity and free access bring out the worst in humans. Were it not for the policy guidelines you dismiss as "legalese" and the constant effort of thousands of editors, vandals would have torn Wikipedia to shreds long ago. Creating lists like these, as others have rightly pointed out, is hugely impractical. Enormous and potentially unlimited lists like these are systematically deleted. Sidatio's and Moonriddengirl's arguments for creating a category are perfectly valid, indeed no other solution would be practical here. As Sidatio has said, create articles about notable people instead of just lumping their names in one mass. Such a list might as well be titled "Look how many admirable women we have in India". --Targeman 12:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to category or delete I voted delete above, but after hearing boths sides would agree with Targeman and others. It is not practical or policy to be an article in any way. A category seems to be a perfectly reasonable compromise. Pharmboy 15:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It should be noted that categories are meeting some opposition, at least as far as actors and artists are concerned. I believe the guidelines are clear enough that most of the other categories should not be challenged, but discussion will reach consensus one way or another. --Moonriddengirl 15:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Emotional ownership of an article by the initiator is one way to ensure its viability and maintainability. The great number of lists that are on the Wikipedia are a proof of this. Lists are both utilitarian and beautiful formats. So let them remain especially when they are works in progress. I am sure we all want a free and VIBRANT WIKIPEDIA and not a regimented LIST-less WIKIPEDIA.

moon 16:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry Moon, but on Wikipedia, you are not the owner of articles you initiated. You have to be prepared to accept that others users will tamper with them. If you are not prepared to deal with it, you shouldn't publish you work here. --Targeman 16:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Oooh, I find all those comments to Moonwiki (highly poetic and dramatic, you shouldn't publish, etc) to be "quite insulting". Happily, however, I am above such behavior. Just ask me. Mandsford 23:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Much as I like lists, this one is not a good idea. The organization does not add anything, there is no information given for each, there is no particular reason for grouping them together, we do not have similar lists such as French Women--the only one I see is List of Iranian Women, also up for AfD. -- the category and subcategories would do as well and be much easier to maintain. Frankly, I think this list expresses the POV that there are so few notable Indian women in WP that they should be collected together and highlighted. There do seem to be insufficient articles, and it should be remedied by writing the articles. I'm sure it was not the intent of those making the list to suggest that there were so few notable Indian women that a list was appropriate to make sure they were noticed. DGG (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Some Comments: Instead of concentrating on delistings , it would be better if we focus on things that are working rather than assume the non workability of a project in in its infancy. All off beat enterprises are not understood, opposed when they are conceived. What was the use of conquering the Everest, why man had to go to the moon, why oh why the need to build the Great Wall of China, Why was the Taj Mahal built, Why Shakespeare had to write his immortal plays, why the computer had to be built. all inventions, new structures, philosophies have been opposed, ridiculed with very rational well meaning people with honourable intentions. Yes Goodness is the rival of Greatness. Goodness is standardization. Greatness is setting new standards. Like life, standards too should be allowed to evolve. And evolve they shall, with or without opposition. As Hugo said " No force can stop an idea whose time has come'. Wikipedia too as an idea would have been ridiculed a decade back. The idea of a mobile telephone was scoffed at in the late sixties. Ofcourse Wikipedia needs standards but it needs to be protected from the well intentioned do-gooders. Oscar Wilde has put it so beautifully: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Freedom to do your thing is the right of people until and unless it seriously infringes on the right of others.

PS : The viability of list should be left to the "market forces". Wikipedia admin may consider an automated delisting of archaic articles that are not visited , improved, edited for a certain period of time. This de-listing would be automatic ,genuine and largely unbiased.

moon 07:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. It seems to me that User:Sidatio having just arrived and even not read the regulations (this as evidenced by his own admission on the List of Iranian women - see [[1]]), has set out to removed all entries related to women, not only Iranian women, but also, as I have just discovered, Indian women. In response to my message, Sidatio wrote to me:

"Finally - my "personal ambition" in life is to become independently wealthy and retire young. I don't believe it's possible for me to care any less about the existence of this or any other article (or, for that matter, Wikipedia itself) than I do right now."

I do not believe that someone who cannot "care less" should have the right to begin a crusade to remove entries related to women on Wikipedia. To Sidatio: What you wrote to me, part of which I have quoted above, signifies the attidue of a mercenary! Your entire response to me consists of inconsistencies upon inconsistencies; I did not respond to you yesterday by the fact that I had mentioned that I would no longer write on that particular page. You may ask youself that if you cannot "care less" and if your ambition in life is to become rich, what business you may have to be on these pages, not least by the evident fact that no one becomes rich on spending time on the pages of Wikipedia: in terms of gaining material wealth, this place is the most wasteful place to be. To be brief, I strongly object to the possibility that individuals such as you can undertake such actions as deleting entries on Wikipedia. For those who may not know: there is out there such a thing called misogyny; if you are not a women, ask your mother or sister(s), and they can tell you all about it and the various forms it takes. I am sorry Sidatio, I would not be who I am if I did not call a spade a spade; I regret to say it, but by what you wrote to me yesterday, I lost my trust in you and your motivations. I hereby apologise if I offended you, since it is not, and it has not been, my aim to offend any soul, and least of all you; I am just defending women who seem to be target of injustice the world over, and now, as is becoming overwhelmingly apparent, in this corner of the world called Wikipedia. Lastly, this is my first and last message here. --BF 11:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sidatio did not nominate this article for deletion, I did. I care very much about Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl 12:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did Sidatio not nominate this article, he is not the only advocate for deletion. Plenty of seasoned editors have chimed in with sound policy reasons for deleting this "article". --Evb-wiki 12:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Potentially endless collection of names, unmaintainable, low usefulness. This AfD should be cleaned up, the shouts are irrelevant. Pavel Vozenilek 23:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete way too lose of an inclusion criteria Corpx 20:13, 6 August 2007 (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.