Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous left-handed people

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. - Mailer Diablo 12:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous left-handed people

one of those endlist, Unmaintaniable listcruft, Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but this might be useful to someone.--Hús ö nd 02:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful list. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 02:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list is unmaintaible, too many lefty though, better serves as a category, which I think it's in CFD for the same reason. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As a lefty myself, I think this list is a great idea, and it even helped me out on a project. It's useful, so keep, per above. --Mysmartmouth 02:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only use I can see in this list is for left-handed poeple to brag momentarily about all the famous people that are left-handed, before being shot down in flames by right-handed people showing off how many more famous people are right-handed. This page is one of the most easily vandalised pages in all of wikipedia (who's going to go through and check if they're all actually left-handed?). The individual articles should say if they're left-handed or not. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 02:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes 90% of the world can join the right handed list.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why don't people spend time cleaning up articles instead of creating pointless lists? Arbusto 03:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amen!! Bwithh 02:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A ridiculously broad criterion for a list. If it were ever completed, this article would include links to about 1 in 10 biographical articles on wikipedia. -- IslaySolomon 04:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Left-handedness is important, but you cannot draw much of a connection among the people on this list other than, say, the wrote or did whatever with their left hands. If being left-handed is a notable aspect of the person (say, someone like Sandy Koufax), then that can and should be covered in the person's article. GassyGuy 05:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is quite a lot of deeper conections between left handed people. Strong connection with dominent right hemisphere, see Lateralization of brain function. --Salix alba (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interesting, but it's probably better handled by a webpage someplace. --Dennisthe2 05:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate keep. A category with the same purpose is currently up for deletion at CFD and one of the options mooted there is to merge it into this list. As such, it is clear that some of those there that the list should exist, and also deletion of the list will add confusion to that discussion. It may be better to at least hold this nomination in abeyance until some final decision there. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, at least those which can be verified. By the looks of the list, it looks like everyone and his dog is left-handed. Is there more need for a list of famous right-handed people then? JIP | Talk 08:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the split is indeed 10%/90% then a list of right-handed people would be about 9 times as unmaintainable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Unmaintainable. Contains too many people. With regard to most people this info is trivial and irrelevant and shouldn't be in their article let alone a separate list. When it comes to musicians and athletes something can be said for including it in the relevant articles and making a category out of it. Left-handedness is totally irrelevant to the carreer of for example a politician. Mgm|^(talk) 09:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone's wondering. I'm left-handed too. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm a lefty, and I think that this is just as important as a list of gay people or black people. We're a minority that is discriminated against constantly, and I want our voice to be heard. Don't silence us! Billy Blythe 10:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason to vote keep, those if created will meet AFD, same with a list of right-handed people, and other types of those lists. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as replace with a category. Batmanand | Talk 10:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with category creation.~ Brother William 11:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not create a category - that would be even worse than the list. A list is more maintainable, a category would end up in giant cruft. Pavel Vozenilek 12:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Left-handedness is a fascinating subject of academic study where it is linked with other character traits; having such a list is therefore helpful. I agree with almost everyone that a category wouldn't work here. There is no need for a corresponding list of right-handed people. David | Talk 12:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC) (left-handed too, in the interests of full disclosure)[reply]

How does this article help to elucidate on the character traits linked to left-handedness? GassyGuy 13:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because famous people have usually become famous for something exceptional they have done (there are always exceptions, of course), so readers may wish to spot themes and trends in the list of people provided. David | Talk 13:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People wishing to "spot themes" should either read about the studies done or conduct their own. Using this list is an arbitray and inaccurate method, and it would be a disservice to whatever people to represent it otherwise. Plus, as you already say, there is hardly a trend that will encompass even the majority of these people, because the only real theme here is that they share an arbitrary criterion. GassyGuy 19:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unmaintanable listcruft, about as useful as List of people with blue eyes. Kusma (討論) 13:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is the sort of list that is always a problem. who is 'famous' and what is the significance of grouping those selected 'famous' people by this criteria instead of a million others? -Markeer 16:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not very maintainable (keep the category instead of the list, if one is to be kept). As noted, very few of these are noted for their lefthandedness, and where it's true it should be noted in the individual bio articles instead. Also, Billy Blythe's comment puts me into opposition based on WP:NOT a soapbox or forum for advocacy. I don't see that this list can provide any analysis or insight as suggested by David. Barno 17:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, but needs to be sectioned, the athletes should have a seperate section, there are a million lefty ballplayers but few in the other professions. An interesting topic. Modernist 17:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per several arguments above. Why is it unmaintainable? All we need is a rule that every entry needs a source that passes WP:RS. Further to Modernist's comment, I could easily add many left-handed cricketers, all verified by standard cricketing sources.--Runcorn 19:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Barno. Postdlf 19:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG split. The idea of having all those professions jammed into one ginormous list is truly askng for trouble. What we should do is fork off the sections, apart from the very short ones like Royalty and Philosophers. Since I have strong feelings on the issue of alternate proposals in AfDs, I volunteer to perform the split. Mango juice^talk 20:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they were to become compact, then I would say categorize, but I am still left wondering... say we have a list of or category for left-handed royalty. How does this help us understand the members of said list or category? GassyGuy 23:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. An article on famous left-handed people isn't really to help understand those people but rather to add information about left-handedness. Mango juice^talk 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep but section per Modernist. --mathewguiver 21:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete superlistcruft Bwithh 02:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kusma. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but require citations to each person; I hardly doubt that falsely accusing someone of left-handedness is libellous in this day and age but we should strive to keep biographical articles thoroughly referenced. Carlossuarez46 03:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are easy to get, but I counted over 300 people in that list, and it's not even a tenth of all the articles that could be listed I'm pretty sure. So it's an endless list. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't say earlier, but I think a "Famous left-handed people" category would be a horrible category, it would be clutter in every article that belonged to it, and also, it would be even worse to have subcategories, so we would completely lose the organization the current list has. Mango juice^talk 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a couple of reasons: no assertion of notability because of their left-handedness (if this were the case it would be fine), plus violates WP:NPOV as it passes a judgement call as to who is "famous" enough to be on the list. 23skidoo 06:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We don't need "notability because of their left-handedness"; we just need a good source that they are or were left-handed. If they have a Wikipedia article, then either they are notable enough or the article should be deleted.--Poetlister 15:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and important list. Davey4 12:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly sensible list - see my comments above.--Poetlister 15:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep citations can be added over time. The CfD seems to be heading to listify so it would be odd to delete the list right after that descision. Could pontenially be split if it get too long. --Salix alba (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry to put this ugly box here, but I really want to get people's attention to clarify a point. Some people have realized this but from the discussion it is clear that not all have. A number of people are suggesting that this article be changed into a category. I think that you should know that the reason that this list article is here at AfD in the first place is likely because I placed Category:Famous lefthanded people on CfD about 9½ hours to prior (or it could be just a coincidence). At any rate, it may be prudent to let the CfD run its course and then possibly re-list this AfD at that time (or at least be aware that the category may no longer be there by the time that the AfD is closed). --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see also my comments above. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found out about the CFD a few hours after AFDing the article, I found the article via Lists of people. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is informative, provided that people who add to it aren't just making stuff up. Maybe semi-protect it?--Narlee 00:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this were "List of famous (some other minority)", there would be no chance of deletion. There's no need to semi-protect it, just insist on WP:V.--Holdenhurst 10:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a major psychological irony here that should be noted. Left brained dominated people (a majority of right handed people) tend to think far more often in terms of ego/power/hierarchy and competition. Whereas left handers are mainly co-operative non-power seekers (Einstein, Gandhi, Bob Geldof etc.) Thus the right handed become aggravated and incensed in any possibility where their ego/power/hierarchy is threatened. This list is a good example. What this list does is proffer examples why the human species should think more in terms of the right brain/left hand. It is the higher genius element that we can all tap into. Repressing or deleting this information just continues the retrogressive and/or destructive trend of the "left brained dominated".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthacademy (talk • contribs)

Comment boy I sure hope that last entry was meant as a joke. Actually, I think one of the problems with the list is its inherent lack of objectivity. It's a pretty safe bet to assume the list is maintained by left-handed people who undoubtedly are in fact seeking something that ressembles a "list of left-handers that left-handers can be proud of", like Einstein, Gandhi and Bob Geldof. On the other hand, the list is fairly harmless and you do get to learn interesting things like how Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler and Jack the Ripper are really co-operative non-power seekers (or so Earthacademy would want us to believe). Pascal.Tesson 22:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin will likely ignore the vote, and yes I'm left-handed as well. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting but some of the information is incorrect e.g Hitler wasn't left handed [[1]] the Devil may have been though ?
Strong Delete - WP is NOT a list of random things. This is amazingly broad, at least 1/3 of the worlds population is left handed and guess what, there are a LOT of famous people. Let's cut this kind of garbage and hit ALT-D -- Tawker 00:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs to be a little more disciplined, but I think it's a useful resource. Jack Parlabane 18:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has less than 20 edits. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:42, 2 October 2006 (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.