Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sickle-cell disease researchers

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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of sickle-cell disease researchers

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

Seems rather bizarre to have a list of people known for a particular research topic. PriceDL (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable researchers, notable topic, not a non-encyclopedic cross categorization... I see no reason to delete this. However, if really desired it could be upmerged into Sickle-cell disease#Research. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Would supporting merging information into Sickle-cell disease#Research where their sickle-cell research is sufficiently notable, though not as a list without explanation of their contributions. PriceDL (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – This material seems to me like it would work better as part of Sickle-cell disease#Research, in paragraph form (say, one or two sentences per person). XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are WP:NOTADIRECTORY and the list has an overly broad scope. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete' WP:NOTDIRECTORY - entirely a work of WP:OR. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NLIST. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Why would people not just look at pubmed and just look at the authors? Agree concerned about a directory. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:45, 27 April 2017 (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.