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. Participants provide some decent sources of lists, and group articles, discussing various people as recluses. This supports the existence of the list on purely notability grounds via WP:LISTN, and I do not think the critiques raised about some of those sources reach the point of invalidating them as a whole. Those arguing to delete do raise some understandable problems with the article - "recluse" is frequently a negative term, and so BLP concerns absolutely must be paramount - but good sourcing solves the issue of negative information about living persons, making this overall a content and sourcing issue for the list rather than an existence issue. Ultimately this article needs to be improved with a more specific set of inclusion criteria, and a better introduction that details exactly what those criteria are. Good arguments have been made that a list like this can exist based on WP:LISTN, but very valid criticisms are made that the list as it stands is dangerous from a BLP perspective, potentially somewhat arbitrary, and is struggling to demonstrate why it's better than a category. All of these concerns are technically content issues that could be solved by editing, but if they aren't, I think there's a strong argument that the list is not helpful and it could validly be re-nominated in future. ~ mazca ^talk 17:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of recluses[edit]

List of recluses (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)

I can't see any logical reason to list people who supposedly share a somewhat trivial and subjective personality trait such as reclusion. Additionally, I have this gut feeling there may be a WP:BLP issue regarding some of the people listed here. Vaporgaze (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Vaporgaze (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Vaporgaze (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the list's creator. Rolling Stone, Esquire, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, HuffPost, Times Union, etc. etc. all discuss recluses as a group. To paraphrase Greta Garbo, this list vants to be let alone. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Understandably the creator is going to defend their work. But while it's a nice bit of information, it's trivial at best and an article is not really needed as it's fueled off listicles such as above, all of which are based on someone's personal interpretation of the term. It has the potential to get out of control quickly with editors' varying opinions of the word and consequential namedropping whenever (insert name here) and "recluse" are spotted in the same paragraph of some random article. Not worth the inevitable headache. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. Being a recluse is not "a somewhat trivial and subjective personality trait". Greta Garbo and Howard Hughes, just to name two, are extremely well-known for their reclusiveness, and their bios would be fatally incomplete without it. As for Beemer69's objections, the list satisfies WP:LISTPEOPLE. It is covered by reliable sources and consists of notable individuals. It goes well beyond "someone's personal interpretation" when many journalists, writers, etc. all agree. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets our criteria for WP:NLIST and WP:LISTN and the article has WP:RSs. We keep such lists to serve the readers and to aide in navigation. There is no BLP issue; also many on the list are deceased. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good rationale to delete. Also WP:PRESERVE is a policy on Wikipedia. Wm335td (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Arbitrary, vague, and subjective list criteria and concerns over WP:BLP are valid -- we wouldn't have a list of people with mental/physical health issues or a list of eccentric people and there would be a lot of overlap with people added to this.Citing (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebuttal. BLP states "contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced" (bolding mine) should be removed. I've vetted the more questionable references, and all the people (dead or alive) are well-sourced. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some more. An important thing to note is that in labelling someone a recluse, journalists often only mean that person is exhibiting some aspects of reclusive behaviour for a period. Note the quote in the Telegraph source you gave above "My belief is that ‘recluse' is a code word generated by journalists ... meaning, ‘doesn't like to talk to reporters.'" Labelling someone a recluse because they don't talk to reporters or stop working after retirement is not something we should be doing. Looking at non-journalistic reliable sources, a Google Books search reveals the term is used principally to refer to hermits, where we already have a list of notable religious recluses.----Pontificalibus 06:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The word can be used to describe a hermit who willingly spends their entire adult life in isolation. It seems it can also be used to describe someone in public life who declines a few interviews in retirement. Listing both with no distinction simply because a source uses the word does not make an encyclopedia article. It would be like having a List of angry people, and claiming that every entry is ok because it's supported by a source stating that the person was angry. ----Pontificalibus 21:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Clarityfiend, an experienced editor who knows what they are doing. The delete votes seem to be of the slippery slope type. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG DELETE per WP:NOTCATALOG and objections raised above. The page for recluse already provides examples, which do not need to be complete in order to be valid. But attempting to maintain a running list of notable people requires efforts toward both accuracy and completeness, something not only difficult but also privacy-invasive toward living persons. Also, a list regarding character traits or behaviors should be given sensitivity similar to how religion or sexual orientation are regarded in WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:BLPCAT. As demonstrated in this AfD discussion, even agreeing on what is a reliable source for whether a person is genuinely a “recluse” would be difficult. I second User:Pontificalibus, it would be like having a List of angry people, and using sources where someone else claimed that person was angry. Inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, both for being a catalog, and for being a catalog of perceived personality traits. Cannot see how it wouldn’t be arbitrary and subjective, unless it’s kept so short it can just be a list of examples on the recluses page. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebuttal. It is not the same as List of angry people, unless those people were described as angry over the course of decades of media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it’s okay to put someone on a “list of angry people” if I can find news articles describing them as angry over an extended period of time? One might be during a contentious divorce, another after slander that led to a lawsuit, and a third not long after they’ve been fired... but hey, they’ve been described as “angry” several times by journalists over several years, so of course they belong on a list of angry people! (This is sarcasm to illustrate how horrible this entire idea is.) Shelbystripes (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't be silly. If you can find people who are well-known for being consistently angry over a long period of time, not just intermittently, AND journalists who've discussed them as a group, then maybe, just maybe you'd have an argument. But there aren't, and you don't. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously want to argue there’s no such thing as people who are well-known for being consistently angry? You really want to seem that naive? Regardless, such a list would end up populated with false positives—the intermittent examples falsely interpreted as “being angry,” which you agree would exist—just like this list would. It’s not possible to objectively create a complete list like this, not without inherently including false positives and violating WP:BLP in the process. And if it’s not meant to be a comprehensive list, it’s not objective and complete to the entry title, and therefore it’s not encyclopedic. All you’re describing there are notable examples, which already exist on the Recluse page itself. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is completeness a reason not to have a list? Also, it doesn't violate BLP; the sourcing is strong. As WP:LISTPEOPLE states, a list has to meet the following requirements (1) The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, and (2) The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources. Check, check, and checkmate. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s the criteria for whether to list an individual person on a list, not whether the list itself is appropriate. You seem to be missing the obvious concept just a little further up the page, which clearly applies here: “Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value.” If something is too general or broad, then it’s difficult to maintain a complete and accurate list. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

28 people and 3 fictional characters are too general? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another sign that being a recluse is a notable trait: List of people known as the Recluse, which I've just created. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you created a list page with a clearly definable criteria for people who should and should not be listed. And that specific list page makes deletion of this one even more appropriate, since the two overlap in purpose and this one has overly vague inclusion criteria. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTOVERLAP isn't a valid reason for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Pontificalibus. It's too vague and thus raises WP:BLP concerns. Recluse may cover a few notable examples and comment on them. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. If I alone call Donald Trump the most prolific liar in the known universe, that's a BLP violation. When the press en masse does it (Fox News excepted), it isn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: listing people (and characters) that already have articles devoted to them is pointless. What might be preferable is to create a category for such articles. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebuttal. So all Category:Lists of people and Category:Lists of fictional characters should be deleted? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but article needs a proper introduction and specific rules need to defined for inclusion that don't violate WP:BLP.Igbo (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are sufficient sources linked above (and which I'm seeing in my own search) to show that this passes WP:LISTN. All of the other issues raised here can be hashed out on the talk page (if there are BLP issues, limit it to dead people, for example). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "recluses" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".
  
  Sources

  1. "Encounter article". Encounter. Vol. 70. 1988. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  2. Trachtenberg, Robert (November 1989). "A Who's Who of Great American Recluses — and a Visit With the Richest, Wackiest Hermit of Them All". Spy. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  3. Fu, Li-tsui Flora (2009). Framing Famous Mountains: Grand Tour and Mingshan Paintings in Sixteenth-century China. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. p. 18. ISBN 978-962-996-329-3. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  4. Shirane, Haruo, ed. (2011). The Demon at Agi Bridge and Other Japanese Tales. Translated by Watson, Burton. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-15244-0. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  5. Yampolsky, Philip B., ed. (1990). Selected Writings of Nichiren. Translated by Watson, Burton. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 391. ISBN 0-231-07260-0. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  6. Sadler, Arthur Lindsay (1962). A Short History of Japan. Sydney: Angus & Robertson. p. 109. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  7. "Journal of Japanese Studies article". Journal of Japanese Studies. 21. 1995. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  8. Tanner, Norman (2009). The Ages of Faith: Popular Religion in Late Medieval England and Western Europe. London: I.B. Tauris. p. 124. ISBN 978-1-84511-760-3. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  9. Jones, John B. (1976). Offa's Dyke Path. London: Office of Public Sector Information. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-11-700350-7. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  10. Collis, Louise (1983). Memoirs of a Medieval Woman. New York: HarperCollins. p. 27. ISBN 0-06-090992-7. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  11. Jackson, Samuel Macauley (1889). The Concise Dictionary of Religious Knowledge and Gazetteer. New York: Christian Literature Company. p. 736. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  12. Parsons, Alice Beal (1946). I Know What I'd Do. Boston: E. P. Dutton. p. 16. Retrieved 2020-01-25.
  13. Hartmann, Sieglinde (2013). "Bridal Mysticism and the Politics of the Anchorhold: Dorothy of Montau". In Innes-Parker, Catherine; Yoshikawa, Naoë Kukita (eds.). Anchoritism in the Middle Ages: Texts and Traditions. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. p. 101. ISBN 978-0-7083-2601-5. Retrieved 2020-01-25.

  Sources with quotes

  "Encounter article". Encounter. Vol. 70. 1988. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The article notes: Of 42 leading French intellectuals listed by Lire in 1981, only 14 have never appeared on the programme, and only a very few have turned Pivot down: they include such notable recluses as Samuel Beckett, E. M. Cioran, René Char, and Henri Michaux. Trachtenberg, Robert (November 1989). "A Who's Who of Great American Recluses — and a Visit With the Richest, Wackiest Hermit of Them All". Spy. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The book notes: The classical pianist Glenn Gould may have had the dramatic integrity to drop dead before his comeback, but other notable recluses have been less selfish with their presence. Brian Wilson resurfaced as a thinner, better-groomed nut; Marlene Dietrich narrated a movie about herself (and followed up with an autobiography); and then came the rumor that former first lady turned career girl Jacqueline Onassis was trying to sign ultra-recluse Greta Garbo to write an autobiography for Doubleday. Fu, Li-tsui Flora (2009). Framing Famous Mountains: Grand Tour and Mingshan Paintings in Sixteenth-century China. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. p. 18. ISBN 978-962-996-329-3. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The book notes: At the same time as the Daoists and Buddhists were charting their sacred geography, famous mountains began to feature in mountain records (shanji) composed by resident recluses, both Buddhist and Daoist. Huiyuan, for instance, was credited with writing the first record of Mount Lu. The first two records of Mount Heng were written by the famous Daoist Xu Lingqi (?–474) and Zong Ce, a recluse who refused office toward the beginning of the Southern Qi dynasty (479–502). Shirane, Haruo, ed. (2011). The Demon at Agi Bridge and Other Japanese Tales. Translated by Watson, Burton. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-15244-0. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The book notes: A Companion in Solitude (Kankyo no tomo, ca. 1222) is a two-volume collection of Buddhist setsuwa written by Priest Keisei (1189–1268). The twenty-one stories in volume 1 are about noted recluses and priests such as Kūya (903–972). Yampolsky, Philip B., ed. (1990). Selected Writings of Nichiren. Translated by Watson, Burton. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 391. ISBN 0-231-07260-0. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The book notes: Hui's mother, Empress Lu, persuaded four eminent recluses who lived on Mt. Shang to become his advisors. They were known as Master Tung-yuan, Scholar Lu-li, Ch'i Li- chi, and Master Hsia-huang. Sadler, Arthur Lindsay (1962). A Short History of Japan. Sydney: Angus & Robertson. p. 109. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The book notes: To this period belong three eminent recluses: Saigyo Hoshi, author of some famous verses; Kamo Chomei, who wrote the Hojoki; and Yoshida Kenko, who penned those entertaining essays and comments on life called the Tsure-zure- gusa or "Journal of Japanese Studies article". Journal of Japanese Studies. 21. 1995. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The article notes: In the inscription Taihaku alludes to two famous recluses from the Chinese poetic tradition, T'ao Ch'ien and Wang Wei (701 -61). Tanner, Norman (2009). The Ages of Faith: Popular Religion in Late Medieval England and Western Europe. London: I.B. Tauris. p. 124. ISBN 978-1-84511-760-3. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The book notes: Attention has concentrated on the writings of the two most famous recluses - Richard Rolle (c. 1300-1349), who lived as a hermit in various places and wrote extensive spiritual works in both Latin and English, and Julian of Norwich - and upon the three most important rules written for recluses: Jones, John B. (1976). Offa's Dyke Path. London: Office of Public Sector Information. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-11-700350-7. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The article notes: A little above the town is Plas Newydd, the black and white timbered home of Eleanor Butler and Sarah Ponsonby, the Ladies of Llangollen, two famous recluses from the Irish aristocracy who settled here in 1791. Collis, Louise (1983). Memoirs of a Medieval Woman. New York: HarperCollins. p. 27. ISBN 0-06-090992-7. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The book notes: She had had read to her a number of books written by famous recluses, such as Hilton's Scale of Perfection, Rolle's Stimulus Amoris and Incendium Amoris, and St Bridget of Sweden's Celestial Revelations. Jackson, Samuel Macauley (1889). The Concise Dictionary of Religious Knowledge and Gazetteer. New York: Christian Literature Company. p. 736. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The book notes: Port Koyal des Champs now became known principally as the refuge of a great number of famous recluses, among whom were I'alla the physician, Fontaine the historian, Arnauld d'Audilly, the translator of the fathers, the Duke de Luynes, Pascal, etc. Parsons, Alice Beal (1946). I Know What I'd Do. Boston: E. P. Dutton. p. 16. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The book notes: So she signed a contract for a book on America's two most famous recluses, Hawthorne and Emily Dickinson, bought a lot with her advance royalty, and took out a Building and Loan mortgage to build a house on the lot. Hartmann, Sieglinde (2013). "Bridal Mysticism and the Politics of the Anchorhold: Dorothy of Montau". In Innes-Parker, Catherine; Yoshikawa, Naoë Kukita (eds.). Anchoritism in the Middle Ages: Texts and Traditions. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. p. 101. ISBN 978-0-7083-2601-5. Retrieved 2020-01-25. The book notes: Dorothy of Montau belongs among the most notable recluses of medieval Europe.

  
  
  General notability guideline

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
  
  WP:BLPCAT concerns can be addressed by modifying the inclusion criteria to exclude living people
  
  Editors have raised valid BLP concerns about labeling a living person as a "recluse". WP:BLPCAT says, "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation" and "These principles apply equally to lists ... that ... suggest that any living person has a poor reputation."

  Recluse#Causes says:

  There are many potential reasons for becoming a recluse, including, but are not limited to: a personal philosophy may reject consumer society; a mystical religious outlook may involve becoming a hermit or an anchorite; a survivalist may be practicing self-sufficiency; a criminal might hide away from people to avoid detection by police; or a misanthrope may be unable to tolerate human society.

  The first three causes do not "suggest a person has a poor reputation". The last two causes (saying someone may be a criminal or a misanthrope) do "suggest a person has a poor reputation". So it is likely that including living people on this list violates WP:BLPCAT.

  But that would not require deletion of the entire list. It would only require that we modify the inclusion criteria to exclude living people. This modification of the list's inclusion criteria is permitted by Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people, which says:

  In other cases, editors choose even more stringent requirements, such as already having an article written (not just qualifying for one), or being notable specifically for reasons related to membership in this group. This is commonly used to control the size of lists that could otherwise run to hundreds or thousands of people, such as the List of American film actresses.

  The list's inclusion criteria is a content decision that can be made through an RfC on the article's talk page.

  Cunard (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But all these texts are, without exception, only sources for the use of the word 'recluse'. They don't demonstrate that the various people about whom that word has been used form a coherent group that can be the subject of a list. – Uanfala (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I provided six reliable sources that discuss recluses as a group. Bottom line There are at least five or six people who are pretty much universally labelled recluses: Garbo, Hughes, Dickinson, Salinger and Harper Lee. The Unabomber, the trio who stayed in a hotel suite for decades, and the inspiration for Miss Havisham are also solid entries. That's more than enough for a list. You could argue about the rest, but AFD is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. While we can all find sources of people describing them as a recluse (eg: Scott Walker), I can't see any evidence that there are sources about lists of notable recluses as a whole. In particular, the sources produced by Cunard seem to be passing mentions of recluses as part of other subjects as opposed to sources that document recluses directly, while the ones from Clarityfiend appear to be a bit of light humour such as "How much of the Syd Barrett factor has John Deacon got?" which isn't really suitable for a general article. Perhaps a category would be more appropriate? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep* Facially meets NList with multiple pop culture publications on it. The BLP issue is real though, and that makes it weak. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2020 (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.