Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of strongmen

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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 01:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of strongmen

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

Unsourced list that contains nothing but a list of names. This could be easily accomplished with a category. If this article were a table that gave some meaningful statistics, okay, that's useful, but just a list is not useful. B (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:CLN says it's permissible to have lists and categories duplicating each other. While the list exists, there's the possibility of expanding it with meaningful statistics or at least dates, but if you want something to be improved, deleting it is the wrong course of action. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable per WP:LISTN. See Strong Man, for example. Warden (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad nomination, no valid reason given to delete this article. The list shows people who are notable for one thing, linking to their various articles. More information would be nice, but even without that, there is no valid reason to delete this. Dream Focus 13:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Seems to be a useful enough list. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:32, 20 March 2013 (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.