Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female surgeons

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 of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need really this list? Lists of women in $TRADITIONALLY_MALE_PROFESSION are as unsuitable as the n "Lists of Jews". Wikipedia is as much a vehicle to boost pride in one's gender as it is to boost one's pride in one's ethnicity. Pilatus 03:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A lot of these seem to be historical figures. That's important. You make no attempt to engage the editor and instead go straight to AfD. Why? Finally, I Don't understand your comment, but women are certainly as important as Jews. -- JJay 03:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnecessary. Since gender and surgical skill can't logically be linked, there doesn't seem to be much point to this list. It isn't simply trivia fodder either, as surely a female surgeon isn't much of a novelty anymore. Anybody who wants to know about female surgeons could just pick the female names out of the more comprehensive List of surgeons Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding your statement that gender and surgical skill can't be linked, was that based on research or study? because the NIH does not necessarily agree [1]]and there have been other studies. Would you care to elaborate? -- JJay 17:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename to something more like List of pioneering female surgeons and edit for relevance. The first and most notable entrants into a previously closed field are inherently encyclopedic. This belongs in Wikipedia for the same reason List of first black Major League Baseball players by team and date belongs in Wikipedia. Such lists aren't boosterism: they're history. Durova 04:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary listmania Avalon 05:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to a more restrictive topic, such as that suggested by Durova. The list of all female surgeons would be unmanageable. —Brim 06:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of surgeons under the heading "Female Surgeons". There really isn't a great need to have a seperate lists. Movementarian 07:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to a more restrictive topic. Scott Ritchie 07:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Movementarian. There's no need to create a separate list for female surgeons. — JIP | Talk 09:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not the maintainer of indiscriminate lists. Jtmichcock 11:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Movementarian. And then AfD list of surgeons as having far too many potential candidates... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Starblind puts it --Mecanismo 12:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Starblind. PJM 14:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In many North American med school there are now more female med students than male. Ifnord 17:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unmaintainable listcruft. Firebug 17:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to list of pioneering female surgeons. — RJH 18:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment you missed the point of deleting the article. And please, do not create another useless list article. After all, category pages should be used when creating a simple list. --Mecanismo 20:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to criticize anyone for this vote then criticize me. I suggest you read my reasons first, though. Durova 21:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per JJay and Durova, but rename to something like pioneering female surgeons. peachlette 21:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless list, create a category instead. The problem with list pages is that they invite redlinks for anyone and everyone who falls under the nominal heading (female surgeons, for instance), and thus encourages promotion and vanity. A category otoh collects subjects that are already deemed notable for some reason or reasons not limited to belonging to the nominal group. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - important to ensure that Wikipedia as a whole conforms to WP:NPOV. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per Durova's excellent reasoning. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are hundreds of thousands of surgeons in the country. Do we really want to start listing all of them? --Bachrach44 01:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean world, not country. Wikipedia is not just about America. --Bucephalus 17:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. What's this I hear that Wikipedia wants to have a list of female sturgeons. That makes no sense. I know that they make those tasty caviar eggs but how the heck can you tell which one laid which eggs? This is just. . . .oh, you said surgeons. Nevermind. Emily Latella. (Jtmichcock 03:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete pointless. make a category if you really must. --Bucephalus 14:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect pointless as it is now. List of surgeons --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The rationale used for starting this list is thin.--Ezeu 03:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pilatus. Not everything on Wikipedia needs a list. A category will do fine. Stifle 14:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, of course we'll lose all the info on the red links, plus the ability for anons to add people in the future. -- JJay 16:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The "red links" don't hold any information except the link name. Therefore, by deleting an empty category no notable information is lost. --Mecanismo | Talk 13:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that's wrong. -- JJay 17:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Quite the opposite. It is quite oh so very right. --Mecanismo | Talk 23:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Durova, and cleanup to remove the non-notables. --Mareino 17:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless a male surgeons list is also created.  Grue  17:22, 13 December 2005 (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.