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. Killiondude (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of World War II Bronze Star Medal recipients[edit]

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

As stand alone lists, these lists lacks notability. The Bronze Star was very commonly awarded an its award is not something that would be used in determining the notability of a recipient. The frequency of the award makes the scope of this list immense and would make maintenance of the lists a logistical nightmare. Limiting inclusion on the list to people who are already the subject of an article makes the lists the equivalent of a category; a category that was deleted at CFD earlier this year (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 27#Category:Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal) Nthep (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a note, It does not make it the equivalent of a category: see WP:DEFINING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It becomes a psudo-category if inclusion on the list is limited to people who already the subject of a Wikipedia article. Nthep (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have literally never seen this stated in twelve years on Wikipedia. Lists are lists and categories are categories, but never the twain shall meet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all If individual awards are non-notable then a list is equally so.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 03:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily true. It is possible for a list in which none of the entries are invidiually notable to be entirely appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Not a notable list. --Molestash (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, not notable for stand alone article and subjective, incomplete. Kierzek (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is the list criterion subjective? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:EVERYONEELSE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on these, as I can clearly see the arguments favoring both retention and deletion. That said, I find the lack of policy-based arguments in the above to be profoundly disturbing. Please explain why this isn't notable and why you believe it should be deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline in question is WP:LISTN: a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Thus a list of non-notable individuals is possible, if the group is notable. (This often arises because of BLP1E) But the same guideline notes implicitly that a list article becomes impractical when the numbers involved become too large to make it manageable. We cannot list 400,000 names without blowing a technical limit or two, and even the list of notable recipients (ie ones with Wikipedia articles) runs into the thousands. It then just becomes an indiscriminate list of names, which brings up WP:NOT. It is understood that even decorations that are regarded as common like the Pacific Star may be highly prized by recipients. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We deleted the category because some 400,000 of these medals were issued during WWII. [1] How can it then make sense to have a list article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hawkeye7 this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE given the large number of awards.Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I agree with the WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:DEFINE argument and the highly selective nature of this list with regard to the staggering number of recipients of this award. This specific information of this award should be on the article of the notable person; not the other way around. Ventric (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2017 (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.