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 keep. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 22:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of redheads[edit]

List of redheads (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)

In theory this is a WP:CSD#G4: A list of this type was deleted at AfD previously on the basis that hair color is a ridiculous, near-indiscriminate basis for a list. If hair color is an appropriate basis for a list article, then why not "List of black-haired people," which would be virtually everyone in several large racial/ethnic groups? The only reason I hesitated and went to AfD instead of speedy is that the previous discussion was in back in 2006. However, the reasoning seems as valid now as it was then, so unless the view of the community has significantly changed, it seems that this article should be deleted. RL0919 (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - My initial reaction, glancing at the topic, was "how ridiculous." But this is a sourced list and there are multiple independently published books on the topic. Volosy krasnyi — chelovek opasnyi. Carrite (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Red hair. Far too indiscriminate to be a useful standalone list, but the most famous (not Eric Stoltz) deserve a listing somewhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Too ridiculous to have an article of its own based on a hair colour. Dengero (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The cited sources include an encyclopedia which contains a similar list of red-headed people and so WP:LISTN is satisfied. Warden (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per WP:LISTN—sourced? Yes. Notable? Yeh. —Theopolisme 23:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets LISTN. Glad to see the list does *not* include dyed hair.  The Steve  07:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps members of the list should copy Wikipedia by hand... Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - previously deleted, why is it any more relevant now? Lukeno94 (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the sources in the article were published after the date of that earlier AFD and so we have new evidence to consider. My impression is that redheads, as a group, are getting more attention now. For example, here's a fresh study which is currently appearing in the press. Warden (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they are, as the nomination states, we'd need a different article for people of every single hair colour. I fail to see why we would have any standalone article of this type. At the very most, a summary of this article could be put into the Red hair page. This does not need its own article.Lukeno94 (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ALLORNOTHING, "The status of articles on other similar topics has no necessary bearing on a particular article." If people have written about this topic and so made it notable, this does not mean that we have to create similar articles for every other colour of the rainbow. Warden (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are abundant sources listing redheads; many find it an interesting topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in this form. Because of the large size of the group, this will either become unmanageably large or be limited to a random selection of notable redheads; in either case it's not very useful and creates BLP overhead. Categorization is the better approach.  Sandstein  08:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They get coverage for being redheads. Type in any of the names on the list and "redhead" OR "red hair" and you get results. When reliable sources talk about them, they mention this aspect of them. Dream Focus 15:29, 9 November 2012 (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.