Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists

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 to delete, with a recommendation to rename the article. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of people who went to heaven alive

List of people who went to heaven alive (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I do not believe this topic deserves an article. Putting aside the correctable issue of a misleading title, a "list of people" is inappropriate in this case. An article on the supposed phenomenon of persons entering heaven while still living may be notable and should contain examples but this is not that article and, as far as I know, that article does not exist. An online search for information reveals that there are plenty of sources about Elijah, Serach, and Enoch that mention the aforementioned entry into heaven while still alive. However, that information belongs in the individual articles. So, I propose that this article be deleted because:

1. The article does not prove the notability of the subject by providing at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial secondary sources, and I have been unable to prove the topic's notability through my own search.
2. The article does not provide clear standards of inclusion or exclusion, in violation of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). For instance, not too long ago, this list boasted Cheech Marin (see diff).
3. Any listing of the handful of characters who supposedly entered heaven while still alive should be contained in an article on the phenomenon itself rather than existing as a stand-alone list.

As I believe the problem to be endemic to the topic rather than the just the article, I am skipping the usual steps of tagging the article with various cleanup tags or requesting that the article's author (inactive for a month) try to fix it. -- Black Falcon 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In lieu of the changes made to the article within the past 20 hours (see diff), I am changing my recommendation to delete and now believe the article is worthy of being kept. The changes have made this a wholly different article that proves the notability of the topic, provides clear(er) standards of inclusion (as clear as we'll have with 2000 year old texts that are disputed), and addresses the general concept of ascension into heaven rather than merely listing persons who could fall in that category.

That said, I do not think this AFD should be closed early (i.e., I do not withdraw my nomination). A few editors have already suggested deletion, and even though their comments apply to the old version, a speedy close is no longer possible. Additionally, other editors may be able to contribute to the article or to the discussion regarding a new title, currently ongoing at the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 03:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• delete is this a joke?--Sefringle 03:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You know, I did think of {{prod}}ding it. The only reason I didn't was the abundance of sources that discuss the topic specifically in relation to Elijah, Serach, or Enoch. The issue is that their synthesis into an article (note: not a list) would probably require original research (and there's still the point that such analysis should belong in the individual articles rather than a list). -- Black Falcon 04:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete if it's not a joke, it's a very minor literary reference Citicat 03:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It is most definitely not a joke. Having been educated in a rigorous Orthodox Jewish day school, I have the background in Midrash to recognize the claims made about Enoch and Elijah, and the inclusion of Serach does not surprise me. The topic of people ascending to heaven is extremely minor within Jewish tradition, let alone in the context of a general-interest encyclopedia. The event should be noted in Enoch and Elijah; I presume it already is. YechielMan 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. I would love to believe in this but fails WP:ATT and WP:V. Morenooso 04:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Resurgent insurgent 06:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. I would love to believe in this but fails WP:ATT and WP:V. Morenooso 04:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This was accidentally double-posted (see diff) by another user. -- Black Falcon 19:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because the list could be improved enormously. I take deep offense at calling this a joke. If you don't know enough about a particular religion, or religion in general, don't go calling subjects related to what people hold sacred a "joke". I'm no expert myself, but I know "People who went to heaven alive" is usually called "translation into heaven" or "assumption into heaven" or "ascension into heaven". From Christianity you could add Jesus of Nazareth and (at least in Roman Catholic doctrine) Mary, mother of Jesus. The day commemorating her assumption into heaven is a holy day of obligation for Catholics. See Assumption of Mary. It's also celebrated in art. See: Assumption of the Virgin Mary. This hardly indicates that the "topic of people ascending to heaven is extremely minor within Jewish tradition, let alone in the context of a general-interest encyclopedia." (Emphasis added.) Muslims might also beg to differ, since many believe that Muhammad also ascended into heaven at the Dome of the Rock. Wikipedia has a short article on it: Kitab al-Miraj. In Polynesian (or at least Maori) religion, there also seems to be a person (maybe more) who ascended into heaven, but I don't have time to read through Rupe's Ascent into Heaven. If you scroll through these search results, you'll see plenty of examples, although it shades off into myth, or at least people we have no historical knowledge of. Apollonius of Tyana is also said to have been assumed into heaven.

As a subject the list is certainly important enough for an encyclopedia. Since some explanation of which religion(s) consider certain figures to have ascended bodily into heaven is necessary to help a reader navigate through the topic, so a category would be inadequate. I haven't found any source that considers all bodily assumptions into heaven from all religions, but it seems to me it isn't origional research to simply state that the concept exists in various religions and describe how each religion treats the concept in theology and tradition. One day I expect we'll get individual articles on bodily assumption in Judaism, Catholicism, Islam, etc. Perhaps a fuller account of how assumption into heaven relates to how these people are understood is best left to the individual articles on these people, but something is needed for this concept, and I think a list with short descriptions is a worthy start. Noroton 06:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep, as problematic but salvageable. Although not a fan of lists, the nominators first two points, I think, are not valid. #1...Most, if not all, biblical person's existence and actions are attested to only through that document, all other sources derive from that and they are abundant. #2...Vandalism to an article is not a reason for deletion of that article and standards for inclusion could be addressed through a more qualifying title for the article. #3 Raises the best point but could be addressed through renaming...in Christian/Jewish/Muslim theology..., or some such way. I hope the creator of the article can tighten it up during the nomination process. killing sparrows 06:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My second point was not vandalism, but rather a lack of clear criteria for what consitutes "going to heaven alive". Given the vague inclusion criteria, the addition of Cheech Marin technically was not vandalism. -- Black Falcon 07:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. I'll add the comment that I can see the value of this list where someone reads about Enoch or Mary or Mohamed ascending to heaven and then from this list, (as a 'see also') is able to compare and contrast the phenomenom in other traditions. FWIW --killing sparrows 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Fails WP:ATTR and WP:V Chevinki 07:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and give it a more appropriate name - something like Religious belief in the possibility to enter heaven alive. It is a pretty well sourced theme in theology and comparative religions, so I do not see problems with WP:ATTR or WP:V.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Tnomad 13:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It probably needs a better title, but as Noroton and Ioannes said, this is an important theological point in several religions. Pinball22 13:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Certainly there is theological importance regarding those who have went bodily to heaven, but the issue here is if a list of such people is important. I think that the individual pages of those who have is enough to cover the subject, and that seeing a list of them is of no importance. Also note that no article pages link to this one at all. Tarc 13:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Bad Jokes and Deleted Nonsense. At least it made me laugh. DTD_(speak)
• The topic deserves coverage, as a comparison of the various doctrines within each faith stating that certain people ascended into heaven, but the format of a list is misleading. How about moving it to, "Religious doctrines of ascension into heaven" or something along those lines? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete There is enough misinformation on Wikipedia without adding religious psychobabble masquerading as truth. NL 29 March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.214.34.243 (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. We can't pick and choose what "religious psychobabble" (to quote the unregistered user above) to keep and what not to keep. Barring a Wikipedia policy banning religion-based articles, this topic which has non-trivial sources cited (though more would be desirable) has every bit as much a right to have an article as immaculate conception. It does, however, need to be given a different title and it should not be treated as a list. 23skidoo 17:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:N.--Bryson 18:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A bit confusing in the title, and at first brush a lot of folks thought it might be a joke or something. But since it's clearly not intended for humor, it's confusing. Anyway, concur with the nominator. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Since this article is undergoing some revision, editors in this discussion should take a look back later and see if their opinions still apply. I've begun to make some changes, many more are needed and by editors who are more familiar with the various religions involved, but the article is already a lot different from what it was when nominated. I think this can and should evolve into something more than a list. I'm starting a discussion on the article's talk page about what to name it.Noroton 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment by nominator. In response to the comment by 218.214.34.243 above, I ask that this AFD not be turned into a discussion about religion or faith. As I mentioned in my nomination, the issue of a misleading title is correctable and not a reason to delete. My position from the start was this: an article on Translation into heaven may be notable and would include a list of such people, but such a list should not exist by itself without sources or additional prose content. If this list can be modified to that purpose, I will modify my position to simply requesting a change of title. -- Black Falcon 19:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I completely agree This should be a discussion on an article, not beliefs, and I don't think anything more needs to be said here about the nature of the beliefs. Noroton 19:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Note that this article has been substantially improved since its nomination. Encyclopedic topic in comparative theology, reasonably well sourced. Should have a better name, though. Sandstein 19:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename - the title is awful but the topic is encyclopedic because of its importance in major world religions. There are many solutions besides changing the name including splitting this up by religion. In any event, the article should be kept and improved rather than deleted. --Richard 19:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep It needs renaming, but considering the development since the nomination deletion shouldn't even be considered anymore. A.J.A. 19:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Far more notable than List of charismatic leaders as defined by Max Weber's classification of authority, for example. Article should probably be renamed. — goethean ॐ 20:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• The work on this article is commendable and I would be able to support a move to a better title. Please note the existence of Translation (religion) which itself is a disambig page that mentions bodily ascent into heaven. Translation (disambiguation) reveals a number of other Translation (x) articles in existence so name choice an integration might be a little complex. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment How about some variation on "Ascension"? - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Name-changing discussion is now taking place at Talk:List of people who went to heaven alive#Suggestion to change the name of the article. Please make any name-change suggestions there and then this discussion can concentrate more on whether to keep or delete the article. Noroton 22:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- The article needs major improvement and a more appropriate name, but it has the potential to become a valid article. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This certainly isn't a joke, and there are sources for the individuals given. However, there are significant WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems not solvable simply by changing the title. One difficulty is that there are enormous differences between the degree of belief and sourcing for various individuals. In Judaism, for example, Elijah is specifically mentioned in the Bible, while other figures are mentioned only in relatively minor Midrashic sources. Simply listing them creates an appearance of commonality of belief and importance which simply doesn't exist in the underlying religious traditions. A more fundamental problem is that the whole topic, as it stands, represents WP:OR -- it claimss a commonality among figures who have different stories. for example it presents them as going to a common, a place called "Heaven", which is impliedly represented as being common to every religion listed, even though not every religion listed has this concept. I'm not sure that changing the name would solve the problem. I'm not questioning that this could be a valid topic. It's the business of original researchers to identify common themes in disparate cultures and to provide explanations why regarding the themes as common is legitimate. But I don't believe it's the business of Wikipedia to do this sort of original research. And it's even less the business of Wikipedia to do it in a way that treats commonality as a hidden assumption which the reader is required to take for granted. The article should at least address the question of whether other religions actually have a comparable concept of "heaven" rather than fitting them into the framework of ones own worldview unquestioningly. --Shirahadasha 01:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Response I've posted requests for editors to look at this article and deletion discussion at WikiProject talk pages for Bible, Christianity, Judaism, Islam and, I think, Religion hoping to get some useable insight of this general sort. But I have to respond that absolutely none of Shirahadasha's points show any reason at all to delete, only to further improve the Judaism section of the article (there's already a notice at the top of that section calling for improvements). There is a Wikipedia article, Heaven, which is linked to in the top paragraph of this article and where the Jewish concepts of the afterlife are discussed, and it would be proper to note some differences in the concept of heaven or note the absence of the belief in heaven in Judaism, if that's the case. Of course, that explanation would have to address the citations from Genesis and 2 Kings already in the article. I'm going to copy and cross post S's valuable comment above to the article's talk page and respond to other points about article content, which don't need to be addressed further here.Noroton 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm under a bit of time pressure so I'll just drop a quick note. Noroton, can you discuss the pros and cons of just merging this article into Heaven? Does it really merit a separate article? --Richard 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I think the only reason to separate one article from another related article is to keep article sizes manageable and help readers navigate. If this article and Heaven were smallish and couldn't be expected to grow more, then I think we could merge them. Heaven is 47 Kb long right now and, although I haven't looked closely at that article, I can easily imagine it could grow more (there's a lot of information out there). After Googling this subject, here are the areas where I know or have reason to suspect this article might grow: The entire Judaism section, which should show the significant viewpoints on ascension within Judaism, including, I assume, something on midrash; Christian views on Enoch and Elijah's ascensions; more information on Roman Catholic views, Orthodox Christian views and various Protestant views and how they differ and are alike each other; Islam's significant views on Enoch and Elijah; an adequate explanation on Islam's views on Jesus and ascension; the same for Muhammad; ascension in Polynesian religion; more information on Apollonius of Tyrana and ascension; possible ascension of Chinese emperors (I get intriguing whisps of this but can't find anything that really confirms it). All of these sections should eventually show similarities and differences. Ideally, every major part of this article would summarize better, fuller accounts in other, more specific articles, as well as discuss what reliable sources have to say about the similarities and differences of different religions and sects (this would be the best spot for that information and I'm frustrated that I haven't found it yet). This article is about ascension and belief, but it's not hard to imagine ascension in myth and ascension in fiction.Noroton 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep My only problem with this article is that it is an articlespace orphan. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V and <sarcastic comment> WP:BLP </sarcastic comment>. Carlossuarez46 03:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • For this case, verifiability is not a question of whether heaven exists or of whether people go to it while still alive: this is a question of truth, and if this were the case, we'd have no articles on religion at all. Here, verifiability refers to confirming that these individuals were said to have ascended. -- Black Falcon 03:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Move to an article Shirahadasha, your discussion above is interesting, so why don't you make this an article instead. It needs too much explanation to just be a list.DGG 04:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  It is already pretty much an article now. We just have to change the title to reflect the fact that is an article. We have to wait for the AFD close before we can move the article and so we're debating the new title now on the Talk page

  --Richard 05:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but rename. It is a philosophically interesting topic which I am sure plenty has been written about, but the current wording of the title is quite awkward. --Merovingian ※ Talk 05:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to a better title, since the current title seems to assume the truth of the included religious claims and therefore violates WP:NPOV. The article itself is not bad, and has some reliable sources. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 09:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom and (speaking only of the Christian elements) as incoherent, inaccurate and un-sourced theological illiteracy - eg the total confusion of the topics of ascension and assumption - ie the attempts ot improve it have not helped, rather the reverse. Shirahadasha makes very valid points above. Unsalvageable. Springnuts 14:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles can be and have been totally rewritten. What you need to justify a vote for deletion is a case that there shouldn't be any article on the general topic, under any title, EVER. I say that because 1) there is an ongoing discussion on changing the title 2) the notability is hardly going to change and 3) if this article is deleted any future article on the topic will be liable to get speedied. A.J.A. 19:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Springnuts, your comments are essentially incomprehensible because you offer no explanation for them and your citations are indecipherable. Give the specific reasons and citations your strong opinion actually demands. I'll be specific: (a) what precisely is inaccurate (a serious charge in an encyclopedia); (b) where is the confusion between ascension and assumption; (c) what is incoherent. If you're going to criticize the efforts of editors who are doing their best, then it seems to me that [self edit to delete my comment. See Apologies comment below]. You might even practice a bit of your calling by helping to edit the article, but you're the best judge of where your time and effort is most needed.Noroton 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! Well Noroton, not to waste a lot of time - (a) inaccuracy: the article lists Jesus as someone who entered heaven without dying, however it is a fundamental Christian belief that Jesus died on the cross. The article states "in Christian belief, the privilege of entering heaven without dying is reserved for those who are considered to have been without sin" - but most Christians do not consider Elijah sinless, yet he did enter heaven without dying ... the article states "Belief in the ascension of Christ is part of the Reformed churches tradition" but it is actually part of all orthodox tradition (b) ascension is after death (ie with dying), assumption is before death (ie without dying), (c) hence the whole thing is, imo, incoherent - and un-necessary. (self edit - remove now unnecessary comment). Springnuts 22:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Double-ouch! Those are valid points and I wrote one of the offending sentences so I cry "Uncle!", "mea culpa" and whatever else is appropriate. We should address the issues raised by Springnuts. However, those are just arguments that the article could be improved not that it should be deleted. As stated above, one argument for deleting an article is that there should not be an article on this topic because the topic is inherently unencyclopedic. A somewhat different line of argument would assert that the topic is encyclopedic but this particular revision is so hopelessly flawed that it would be better to throw it out and rewrite it than to attempt to save it. I don't think either of these arguments is applicable here. --Richard 22:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies: I'm sorry. My comment was inappropriate, so I've deleted it. When I wrote it I told myself I was writing criticism, but the plain meaning of the words amounted to a personal attack. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I'm copying some of your comments onto the article's talk page (and responding to some points there), and they'll help us improve the article. I agree with Richard's comments just above and leave it to Richard to change what he wrote. Noroton 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So remove the part about Jesus and the part about sinlessness and say "Christian" instead of "Reformed". None of this shows that no encyclopedic article on the topic could ever be written, just that one doesn't exist right now. A.J.A. 05:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I acknowledge the article needs work, and there are inherent problems in trying to lump a variety of different theological concepts under the word "heaven". However, I also believe that the subject is sufficiently notable and well sourced for inclusion. It will need a lot of work though. John Carter 15:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - needs to be renamed, and needs a lot of work, but the basis of the article is sound. The reference I just added treats the subject more fully than we've seen so far. -- BPMullins | Talk 20:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - a perfectly valid topic for a list. - Nunh-huh 20:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - As the existence of heaven cannot be proven, by definition, nor can the contents of the article in question. HalfShadow 22:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The standard is not whether we can prove that these people actually entered heaven, but rather whether we can prove that religious texts have claimed they entered heaven. Your argument would essentially condemn any article on a religious topic. Verifiability, not truth is the standard. -- Black Falcon 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Not so fast, Black Falcon, maybe we could use this argument in Pokemon deletions ... Noroton 23:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything while I read that. I have a hard time really sympathising with your desire; of the hundreds of times I've clicked on the "Random article" link, I think I've only encountered 1 or 2 Pokemon-related articles. -- Black Falcon 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. While this is a notable subject, and it itself could definitely be attributed and written into a good and maintainable article, it shouldn't just be a stand-alone list. The subject as a whole has another name which I don't remember at the moment, (looked it up, the word is Translation) but if someone can then they should feel free to write it. --tjstrf talk 04:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Translation (Mormonism), which in turn is then renamed and expanded to include the beliefs of other religions as well. Silly me, not reading the full text of the debate first, if I had it would have saved me the trouble of digging out my copy of Prophets and Kings to look up what it was called there. --tjstrf talk 05:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but rename. It is an interesting and notable topic — and certainly if the person standing next to you was so "taken up", you'd be "sore amazed". The title is misleading since it's really an article and not a list, per se. It should drop the pretense to being a "list" and be expanded as the article it already is. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep but rename - This is not a joke as claimed by a self-proclaimed atheist, but a seriously held subject in the three great monotheistic religions. However 'List of' should be dropped from the title. Since it is combining various different kinds of entry into heaven (Translation, ascension, and assumption), perhaps St Paul should also ne mentioned, as he claimed to have been taken up into heaven temporarily, though he did not know if it was in the body or out of it. Some one claimed the reference to Enoch is a minor literary reference - that is true but much has been written and preached about it. The article Translation (Mormon) has nothing to do with this, and I would oppose any merge with that. Peterkingiron 22:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete for the reasons set out in detail over several posts in the article's talk page. To summarize briefly:

1. Mary did not go to heaven alive, her body was assumed after her death.
2. Jesus was not a 'person,' an ordinary mortal as is meant by all other persons in this list, and experienced death prior to ascension.
3. Elijah's status, although superficially qualifying, is subject to different interpretations as laid out in the WP articles, Elijah, and Bosom of Abraham.
4. Translation (Mormonism) was added to the article, but this doctrine does not, as far as I can find, say anything about 'going to heaven.'
5. Enoch and Sirach, problematic for several reasons, not the least of which is the ambiguity of Judaism on the topic of heaven in general and these personage's fate in particular.
6. Appolonius of Tyana, not a part of Abrahamic tradition, thus use of the word 'heaven' really cannot be accepted.

What we have is a list of disparate persons arriving at arguably different 'destinations' by various means. Assumption, ascension, translation, no commonly accepted terms or processes. I supported this nomination and have spent much time looking into the persons and processes and have to say that all are covered in specific detail in the relevant articles, a list of this type would have to say something like...'List of people/dieties who went somewhere either before or after dying.' I just can't see any way to tie it together in one article. Please, no replies to specific points here. Take it to the article's talk page. killing sparrows 01:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, although we should almost keep it for the comedy value. Encyclopaedia Britannica eat your heart out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename Even though it might seem minor, it is a notable theological concept. The article needs some rewriting and clean up but there is no reason for deletion. Pax:Vobiscum 10:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Category: People who went to heaven alive. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 16:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please don't since a CfD would likely have a consensus for a list. With a list you can add the date they went, the source, their religion and other information. Placing these in a category would not add those characteristics. Vegaswikian 19:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rename and make into article, needs much work so that it doesn't stray into original research. As several have noted, it's a theme prevalent in several religions. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, but renaming and improvement are needed. This is a very important concept for Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and it consequentially merits an article on Wikipedia. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 11:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• (removed own edit to article talk page) Springnuts 08:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 and make a category if someone wants to. John Reaves (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Waldorf Schools

List of Waldorf Schools (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An AFD was considered in its talk page before, and the fact the school system is worldwide can be represented fine with the main article. List is full of "red" Wikipedia links which may encourage people to make non-notable school articles. Guroadrunner 14:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 19:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The nominator didn't bring it up, but if anyone doubts notability, the Waldorf system itself is shown to be notable in the main article Waldorf education (see the second paragraph and the quotes in Footnotes 9 and 11). Since it's notable, expanding and seems to be at least somewhat influential, it seems to me it would be good to keep a list that can help people find out more about it, especially in their own corner of the world. Knowing even the name of a particular school would help in Internet searches or off-line research. We should be helping people with a serious interest in a serious subject, which is another way of saying that if ever a list was encyclopedic, it's this one. The question over whether to delete the list is separate from whether or not the schools on it are themselves notable. If some consensus of editors thinks creating Waldorf school articles should be discouraged, they can decide to remove the redlinks. Noroton 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am not nominating it because I see the notability of Waldorf Schools to be an issue, I am nominating it because the list is unnecessary and a link to the full list can be provided within the Waldorf Schools article for others to see where all of the schools are. Guroadrunner 13:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Response The Waldorf education article is 48 kilobytes long, and this list is also long and not even complete. I think you'll wind up with an article that's much too long. Or do you have some other article in mind to merge it with? Noroton 01:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the proposer of the previous AfD discussion has since been banned by ArbCom from editing Waldorf related articles. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Waldorf educations contain an encyclopaedic subset of schools, and I don't see why there shouldn't be a list of them in an encyclopaedia. The list is poorly structured and undeveloped at the moment, but if you browse through it you will see there is the basis for a valid list of articles. That red links encourage blue links is true, but it is wrong to think that the creation of articles is inherently bad - each article linked from the list should be considered on its merits. It doesn't affect the value of this list. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 21:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NOT As is stated in the heading there is a list of these schools online (a more complete one at that), so if people want the information then it is there. This list would be far better changed to a category with the schools that have an article being included and the red links deleted until someone creates an article for them. Xarr 22:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In what possible way is this list indiscriminate? Or is there something else in WP:NOT that you're referring to? Since when does the information that other Web sites present govern whether or not we should have a list of encyclopedic information? Noroton 23:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry wrong guideline, it was late... Xarr 15:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Make Category as a nonnotable list of probably nonnotable schools, and per WP:NOT. If anything, make it a category (with subcats for countries if desired). There's no reason for this to be a list. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, a vote I did not expect I would make before examining the article. It's full of link-outs (WP:NOT a directory) and red-links for almost certainly non-notable schools. Take those away and it's a list with very few blue links. For this, I think a category works better. --Dhartung | Talk 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The primary purposes of a list are to allow organization and additional details and to allow for red links, all of which can not be done in a category. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes for a rather clear explanation of the synergistic interaction of lists and categories; they are not mutually exclusive. As usual, WP:NOT is being used as an excuse to mean "anything I have arbitrarily decided does not belong on Wikipedia, but won't offer a valid reason". The concern that red links "may encourage people to make non-notable school articles" is just as ludicrous as the fear that they might lead to mixed dancing. Alansohn 04:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I believe the concern about the red links being changed into individual, non-notable school articles is worthwhile. Calling it ludicrous without giving arguments why you think it's ludicrous doesn't help any. Guroadrunner 13:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply: Sorry for not elaborating in further detail why the existence of red links as a reason for deletion of an article is "ludicrous". Lists are a perfectly valid option to use to describe a group of items in Wikipedia. As described in detail at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, one of the specific advantages of using lists is that "Lists can include items for which there are yet no articles (red links)." While you have a dreadful fear of non-notable articles being created, I see no valid reason to use your concern as an excuse for deletion, nor have you provided any examples of a genuine problem to demonstrate that your fears are justified. The red links might just as well be the impetus to create well-crafted articles about the many notable Waldorf Schools, to join the more than two dozen such articles already in existence. Alansohn 03:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete at least until these articles are made and this list is actually useful. MetsFan76 13:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I was going to say Merge into Waldorf education but that article is too large for a merge. The category will serve to group the articles that currently exist. Another option would be to keep the list and not use as many heading and only have a heading where the school is listed. Vegaswikian 00:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but create category such as Category:Waldorf and Steiner Schools- Waldorf and Steiner schools do exist; I do not supprt them or the philospohy behind them, but that is irrelevant. The article on Elmfield Rudolf Steiner School states that there are 780 schools worldwide. This is much too much for a list. Anyway lists of this kind are not a useful part of WP: an external link to an organisation's own website (which will be maintained by them) is much better. However, some such schools have articles, and should be linked by means of a category. I think that creating a category is reserved to Admins. Peterkingiron 13:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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.

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. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Korean family names (2nd nomination)

List of Korean family names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of names

I previously closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of names as "delete", but it has been noted that that AFD was weak on consensus, having only two users other than the nominator commenting. Therefore I have undeleted the article and opened a new AFD. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-21 05:23Z

• Merge and Delete - An interesting list, but 'interesting' does not validate its own space on Pedia. The data should be kept, especially the figure regarding Kim. It should merge into Korean name if at all possible. Extant inside article already. ALTON .ıl 05:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Absolutely, positively, without doubt keep. Korean name is an article about Korean names (both given and surnames) in general, and is not meant to house all the surnames, thus this article is the logical one for this data. We do, in many other subjects, have articles covering the broad subject (such as Johann Sebastian Bach), as well as other articles listing Bach's compositions, which provides an excellent and valuable reference that could not be easily contained in a single article. It is a waste of time and energy to nominate this for deletion a second time, and does nothing to advance Wikipedia's aims to be the best and most comprehensive encyclopedia. I frequently refer to the List of common Chinese surnames and this article is equally useful. Badagnani 05:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- cab 05:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep interesting and useful list. --Melanochromis 05:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep List has South Korean population figures, and readers can look at the list and compare population sizes between different surnames. That makes it encyclopedic. Plus, article has room for expansion. I'd like to see the number of Bon-gwans listed for each surname. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Contingent keep. The list is somewhat more useful than List of names itself, as there are a limited number of Korean family names. However, for consistency sake, if List of names is deleted by consensus, I'd say delete this article as well. --Nlu (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: at Wikipedia, I believe *reasonableness* is more important in such cases than stringent, legalistic rulings like "delete all lists of names." The fact that there are so few Korean (and Chinese, and Vietnamese) surnames makes it possible to list, and explain them, and I, for one, use these articles as a reference. Cutting them out to fulfill the stipulations of some sort of severe ruling does not advance the cause of knowledge, nor our encyclopedia. Badagnani 06:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Badaghani. Also, bring back all the other lists of names. - Peregrine Fisher 07:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: don't you think a list of, for example, European surnames (with all their infinite spelling variations) would be unworkably huge? I think that's been largely agreed on by consensus, with the exception being for the Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese surnames since there are so few of them. Just my comment. Badagnani 07:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Chinese surnames may be relatively few, but they're not that few. The Hundred Family Surnames are not comprehensive, and there are many, many rarer surnames that nevertheless are used. I suspect that to be the case with Korean and Vietnamese names as well. I do believe that they're few enough that a list will still have some use, but I think that if the other lists are all deleted, this should go, too, for consistency. --Nlu (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Korean surnames, this list is fully comprehensive, as it includes all surnames registered in the South Korean census. The only thing it leaves out are a handful of names which are attested historically but are not carried by any living person (or at least not by anyone in South Korea). -- Visviva 14:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep this interesting and useful list. --Mumun 無文 10:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic though still needing improvement. Thanks to Quarl for kindly re-listing. -- Visviva 10:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see a valid argument for deletion.  --Lambiam^Talk 12:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Badagnani --_MerkurIX^{(이야기하세요!)}_(투고) 12:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and also WP:SNOWRaveenS 13:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The page makes sense because there are so few Korean names. There have been two occasions in the past when I needed to refer to this page for my research, so I can attest to its usefulness. -- Dominus 13:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - As a foreigner living in Korea, and trying to learn to read (both hangul and hanja), this is a great collection of information. -- Otebig 14:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - straightforward purpossful list which serves navigational purposes and can easily be its own article. WilyD 15:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - and more of the surnames should probably be turned into links. (Redlinks, and then bluelinks at some point). This will make the article usable for purposes of developing Wikipedia (one of the criterion of WP:LIST under which the existence of list is justified) Given that sites like rootsweb.co.kr are able to write non-trivial text (e.g. history) about many of the surnames, we should be able to as well. cab 10:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but remove any material which is not properly sourced using reliable sources. Burntsauce 17:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Jegal 00:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Is there any good reason to delete this list? I don't understand why. Good friend100 13:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 Gnangarra 13:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Australian novelists

List of Australian novelists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nothing more than an alphabetical list that is less than the associated category, Category:Australian novelists. Unreferenced per WP:BLP; even for seemingly uncontroversial lists this is still a requirement. There are better places for redlinks such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do Delete --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep am slowly adding dates, & note, no previous attempt has been made to fix the 'problem' by even suggesting changes such as periodising etc. this should have been done 1st. regards blp, irrelevant as 'novelist' is not a criticism.  ⇒ bsnowball  09:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment BLP is not "irrelevent". Every biographical fact we record should be backed by a reference. Who are we to say what is controversial or not? --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless... another person or the author can verify & make the list more interesting than its category. See one of the best lists (;)) on Wikipedia as a guideline - List of dinosaurs. That my friend is a list! If this list can be 1) Cited. 2)Expanded. 3)Made interesting. Then I'd say keep, but until then, delete... Spawn Man 09:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what a request for expansion is for - not an AfD. I'm sure people will do that if you support it, given bsnowball's pledge above. JRG 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Category is enough. Adding dates and other useless info isn't really going to improve the usability of the list.--Dacium 10:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is an article for List of novelists by nationality so this article can be remained, but it should be improved.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Hardly a great list, but dates and redlinks save this from being entirely redundant with a category. The redlinks should be in the article space and not Wikipedia space, because if someone searches for "Russell Braddon" without any clue to who this person is, they should at least be given a search result (hope our search function is working) to this page where they will at least find that the person is an Australian novelist. It is sparse info until we can get a full article, but I think lists in article-space (viewed by many) are more fertile breeding grounds for new articles than a corresponding list in Wikipedia-space (viewed only by members of the Australia or literature WikiProjects). Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment But how would they know that Russell Braddon was in any way notable, and not just a vanity entry, and what references are there for him being a novelist? --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - with the caveats added above. --Martin Wisse 13:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as there cannot be any reliable reference for the list. That means it attracts marginal cases and vanity edits. I know a "novelist" who once had a novel published on the internet (I think it was not self-published, but still not available offline). For the "Russell Braddon" example, the other 7 search results are more useful than this one. Bsnowball, if you're doing the research to fill out this table, why not write a stub for the article instead, citing the references you found? Is Arthur W. Upfield vanity or an important part of literary history - inclusion in this list doesn't tell us. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• comment how about what should have been done before afd? what would a 'proper' list look like? periodisation? (pre-fed, pre/postwar; i am prepared to do this if i know the list won't be deleted anyway) adding informative 'comments'? (also re scott, i'm maintaining the list, so at the moment i decide what's vanity ;) but as a rule of thumb, if they've got a few books in the nla catalogue i leave them in. what do you mean, stub for what article?)  ⇒ bsnowball  17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Grouping by time doesn't make a difference to my opinion. It might for others. What I meant was to write a stub for the novelist at the time you've done enough research to verify their notability. A stub containing: Name (dates of birth/death) is/was an Australian novelist. Some key fact about their life or writing, bibliography, reference list, categories and stub template should be plenty to keep them from ending up here, demonstrates the notability, and gives other editors somewhere to hang any additional information they find. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as useful list being maintained. I assume Arthur W. Upfield is a reference to Arthur Upfield who was a popular writer responsible for the Boney books. Capitalistroadster 01:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep compares well to List of English novelists, however it could be improved with additional summary information (date of birth/death, most notable title / genre)Garrie 01:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to refute that concern. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • While that is true - IMO lists in themselves are only useful in comparison to similar lists. A list of Australian novelists - if it is the only list of novelists - is rubbish. As one of a group of novelists by nationality it becomes much more meaningful.Garrie 23:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Bsnowball's pledge to clean up the article and reference it; and the fact that lists of novelists of other nationalists also exist which would make our Australian content worse than it is at present. This is not really an inexhaustive list: it takes a bit of doing to become a novelists well-known enough to have an article on Wikipedia. JRG 09:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Scott.--cj | talk 13:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to List of Australian writers. Generalize it. Usedup 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Bad idea, then it becomes even more impossible to make a comprehensive list. --Peta 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • What if novelists, literary critics, nonfiction writers and such were separated by section headings? Usedup 16:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the list is defined and possible to complete. --Peta 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

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. Many of these people are alive, and those names which are "sourced" at all cite inappropriate "references" (mostly other wikis or an anonymous online "anarchist's encyclopedia.") WP:BLP is not negotiable, nor is WP:V. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of anarchists

List of anarchists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete We have categories for things like this. Overwhelmingly unsourced. Previously nomination failed because people kept saying "well it just needs to be cleaned up", six months later still a mess. AlistairMcMillan 20:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I especially like the qualifier at the bottom "these people did not qualify themselves as anarchists". Which would I suppose be fine if we identified who did qualify them as anarchists, but of course this is just a list so we don't. AlistairMcMillan 20:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anarchists AlistairMcMillan 20:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep if the entirety of the article is sourced or removed, NOW. Failing that, delete, with a categorisation or any entries that are sourced into the appropriate category, and merge the sourced info into the persons' articles. -- saberwyn 21:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a textbook case for categories. As being an anarchist doesn't make a subject notable, there's no reason for redlinks in this list, and there's no annotation in the list which would make it any more useful than a category. Categorize all the entries that are verifiably anarchists, and delete the list. Zetawoof^(ζ) 22:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintainable and uncertain inclusion criteria Alf^Photoman 22:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - a category is a better substitute. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete especially in light of the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communists. This list is much longer than the communists one, and also contains much less information. Hence, all the objections in the communists AFD apply even more strongly to this list. Stebbins 01:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per above . Manik Raina 03:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I'm currently, very slowly, working on a version with sources and information here. If this article was deleted, would a sourced, informative recreation also be deleted out of process? I'm just wondering. The list of atheists is the example from which to work, in my opinion, for all lists of poeple-by-ideology-or-belief, and that's what I would like to see. I also agree with the point raised on the list of communists AfD that sourcing is much easier in a list than a category. This isn't sourced yet, but it can be. Such souring also lends itself better to people like Max Stirner and Leo Tolstoy, who refused the label of anarchist for personal reasons, but were major anarchist thinkers. I do agree with removing the red links, as people are rarely notable solely for being anarchists. ~Switch ^{t c g} 05:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep at this stage very useful for redlinks. the sources shld be in articles, perhaps only needs verification?  ⇒ bsnowball  11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Such list, if allowed, should be structured by country or period, not sorted by name. That would allow to add some context, unlike the current list. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fascists for a precedent (and that list was much better structured). Pavel Vozenilek 11:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Bsnowball comment above. -- Infrogmation 17:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

To bsnowball and infrogmation: please keep Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons in mind. All the red links that don't have reliable sources beside them should be removed from the article immediately. At least with the blue links there is a chance that the linked article is sourced. For the red links we can see that a large proportion of them are unsourced. They can't just stay there unsourced indefinitely until someone gets around to writing an article. AlistairMcMillan 17:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

blp is irrelevant: as 'anarchist' isn't a straight down the line criticism (the only thing which blp says needs to be gotten rid of 'straight away', & then only if the subject is still living) NB this fact is also the relevant difference with pavel's 'list of fascists' precedent, so that precedent does not apply here.  ⇒ bsnowball  14:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP doesn't just talk about criticism. It talks about "contentious material - whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable". How can you even judge if the material is contentious, when all there is here is a name? BLP does apply. AlistairMcMillan 08:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This article needs referencing, not deletion. Owen 19:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That is what people said six months ago... nothing happened. AlistairMcMillan 20:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Being impatient with an article's progress is not grounds for deletion. I added a number of external links for red links a while ago, and wouldn't mind going through the rest. This article is an important one to have, and is useful in its current state. If the problem with the article is the lack of citations, then we need to warn readers of this fact through tags. Owen 06:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarge, there are a few citations in my sandboxed recreation if needed. Personally I don't think there is a problem with listing Bakunin or similar without citation for the time being, but it always helps. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's looking very good. I agree that we don't need references for the obvious, I just want to make sure that people who don't have articles are at least referenced. I think your categorization helps with that. Still, it might be problematic since it's sometimes hard to say just where people belong. For instance, Zinn would just as well fit as an educator. Overall though I think that's a good direction for the article. Owen 08:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per numerous similar categories. This clearly would be an encyclopediac list if it became sourced--Sefringle 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Goes with Category:Anarchists and it should include those anarchists without articles written for them. --FateClub 20:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If a notable anarchist doesn't have an article, then write a stub on them and add it to the category. Much more useful in the long run: stubs attract improvement, whereas redlinks on a list don't get the same sort of attention. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If we have an article that lists even those with red links we can keep track of who does not have an article and then other can write articles on them, they may be notable for other reasons than being anarchists. --FateClub 20:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

But if the names are not cited, then how do we know if they belong on the list? AlistairMcMillan 22:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Roughly half of them are, and all of them should be. --FateClub 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Usedup 05:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Impatience is not a reason to delete articles that are not flawed in principle. If anyone is impatient that the list is not sourced, they can source it themselves. At least this list, unlike a category, can be referenced. The idea to structure the list differently (i.e., by time period, country, etc.) is a good one, and should be brought up on the article's talk page (assuming it is kept). -- Black Falcon 19:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 Gnangarra 11:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of actors who played Nazis in movies

List of actors who played Nazis in movies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list. There's nothing notable about playing a Nazi character and there's no reason why actors such as Brando and Will Ferrell should be grouped together just because they happened to have portrayed a Nazi at some point in their careers. Saikokira 01:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Can agree with that. A lot of the actors on that page aren't even notable. Delete. Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 03:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This should be at most a category, but even then it might not be NPOV. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NPOV Alf^Photoman 13:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: I'd also like to point out that the title is a tad bit grammatically incorrect, and should be List of actors who have played a Nazi in film, since as it is, you'd have to play as more than one Nazi to qualify.--SeizureDog 14:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - Useless, indiscriminate list. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 22:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Useful index to information in Wikipedia. Someone who wonders "who was the actor who played the Nazi in that film, I think it was called The Enemy or something like that" can browse this list. Categories don't do that. Fg2 01:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete wtf, this article is awful. J'onn J'onzz 01:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep lists of character roles serve a serious purpose in helping anyone interested in how actors approach those roles. Noroton 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• This list tells us nothing about how actors approach playing a Nazi. Otto4711 14:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Noroton 03:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Anyone interested in this discussion may also be interested in the very similar one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actors who played President of the United States. Noroton 03:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Not "very" similar, unless you consider playing a generic Nazi character as significant as playing the President of the United States. This list is many, many times worse than that one. Saikokira 06:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes, I consider one type of role about as significant as another for the purpose of lists of actors who play them. I couldn't care less what significance the role plays in a particular actor's career. What's significant is how actors play those roles, and to study that or even have an interest in that would, I think, be the purpose of a reader coming to this article. I think that's a serious purpose well served by a Wikipedia article. I would break up the list at least into categories of "Comedic Nazis", "Menacing Nazis" and "Other". You could probably have a thousand lists of types of characters actors play. Good thing Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia. Too bad this article looks like it's a goner. Noroton 17:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment "Comedic" Nazis. Do you mean "Comic" Nazis? That is going far. Comic Nazis have practically always (I cannot think of an exception just now) been the result of "a play in the play". Bourvil and Louis de Funès in La Grande Vadrouille are supreme examples of this. If you include them, you will have to include Lee Marvin, Charles Bronson, Trini Lopez ... (The Dirty Dozen). "Other Nazis" is even worse. There is nothing exclusively German or exclusively "1933-1945"-ish about Nazism. Who is to stop my POV from including John Wayne for his role in Green Berets? Basically this list is useless (when completed it will contain thousands of names without any connection between them, and as Sam Blacketer said, any prolific actor should have played a Nazi at one time or other) and simply invites POV inclusions (is the historical guy being portrayed really a Nazi - at the time when this is supposed to take place? what constitutes a Nazi in films - surely most people who go to this list will just be looking for that smart American in the German uniform? how convincing has the play acting in "the play in the play" have to be for it to constitute "playing a comic Nazi"?).--Pan Gerwazy

• Delete - actors can play dozens or hundreds of roles in their careers. There's nothing significant about playing a Nazi. Otto4711 03:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as Otto said "a Nazi" is not a special highight of a career. List of actors who played Adolf Hitler might be comparable to the US President role. This list is more like List of actors who have played a Republican. Also, this list is incomplete and would likely be in the thousands if it were completed. Were the really only two Nazi characters in Schindler's List? None at all in Hogan's Heroes, 'Allo 'Allo! or The Sound of Music? --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Apart from being useless, there are a few other problems. Who is to say that Erwin Rommel and other anti-Hitler conspirators like Stauffenberg and York were nazis? Some of them changed their political opinion. What about Standartenführer Stirlitz? Actually, what the author was thinking of was "List of actors who once played a role which involved wearing a German WWII uniform." Silly. But add the word "black" before "actors" and it becomes less silly, of course. --Pan Gerwazy 15:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Noroton's rationale. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 16:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, because it's an indiscriminate list: any prolific film actor would probably be cast as a Nazi at some point. I wouldn't be opposed to a list of actors who have made a specialism of playing Nazis. Sam Blacketer 17:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because other lists, such as one of actors who play presidents have been voted as keeps, and also because Nazis are one of the most influential and therefore significant groups of the 20th century, regardless of their wickedness, and therefore readers of Wikipedia, whether historians, or just people interested in films, are really likely to check out such useful and relevant articles as this one. Have a spectacular Spring Break! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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.