Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bodyguards (2nd nomination)

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. Further discussion is necessary concerning the inclusion criteria for this list, but there is a strong consensus to keep some version of it. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of bodyguards

List of bodyguards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Unclear what the purpose of this article is or the criteria for notability of bodyguards. If there is such a thing, this list should be substantially longer. Personally I think it fails WP:NOT and should get the boot. Kazamzam (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete indiscriminate list that should be a category if it’s really necessary at all. Dronebogus (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and trim): It should be restricted to people that were famous for being bodyguards (e.g., Walter H. Thompson), not famous people who happen to be bodyguards (e.g., Brodus Clay). If there questions that about how to discern that, that is an editing decision and not grounds for deletion. The page serves as a perfectly fine navigational page and the existence of a category does not change that per WP:NOTDUP. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and trim) per User talk:Why? I Ask suggestion. Almost everyperson in that list are not famous/notable for being bodygurad and need to be removed. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:HASPOT and works as a navigational page.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No more indiscriminate than any other list of people by profession, a perfectly acceptable topic for a list.★Trekker (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - my main issue with this list is its lack of coherence. Jacqueline Kennedy's bodyguard is in the 'former police and security agents' section (should those subjects be in a list for police instead, perhaps?) whereas the bodyguards who assassinated Indira Gandhi, 21 years later, in the historic section. It's one thing to be an independently hired "bodyguard" but a number of subjects in this list were/are Secret Service or Protection Command members - presumably, these could go under those specific listings, rather than this hodgepodge list of arbitrary criteria. Kazamzam (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Cool, that is an editing decision and deletion is not cleanup. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's one perspective - it can be used as cleanup. If the majority of subjects in this list, at present, would be better off in other categories more specific to their occupation, i.e. Secret Service agents, then the number of independent topics may be quite small and the article could warrant deletion. Kazamzam (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe we should keep it but only for notable people User:Friendlyhistorian
• Keep. The topic meets WP:LISTN and page has WP:POTENTIAL. The challenge will be limiting its contents to notable people, but that in and of itself isn’t a valid justification for deletion. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2023 (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.