Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Republicans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. JERRY talk contribs 05:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Republicans

List of Republicans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I though about this for a while and tried to find a template message that fit this situation, but I couldn't figure out any way to solve the problem: this list is unmanageable. It consists of a hodgepodge of internal power-brokers, representatives, senators, governors and ex-cabinet members. Since about 50% of all politicians in the US are Republicans, and the party has 55 million members, the inclusion of people on the list as "prominent" violates WP:Synthesis. I'm sure that the topic is already covered by categories, and is better covered by categories in any case. Midwest Peace (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - there's nothing here that couldn't be accomplished better by a category. --B (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - The title was originally List of notable Republicans, as in prominent, noteworthy Republicans written about by reliable sources. Originally, the entire list was contained within the Republican Party (United States) article and cluttered the whole thing up (a similar list is still found on the History of the United States Republican Party), so I spun it off in manner similar to the List of notable Democrats article. I don't care if it's deleted but it's one among hundreds or thousands of similar Lists on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Lists, Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people. Settler (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete thousands of Republicans have been elected to meaningful offices and are thus notable. This is better organized by categories and/or more specific lists. --W.marsh 03:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment I (or someone else) could further divide the article into even more categorization than is already present: "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. For reference see Lists of people, which is made up of specific categorical lists." Settler (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment - I've begun work on an overhaul of the page on my draft page. Settler (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment I wasn't keen on the list but hadn't decided. I am liking your draft, though. I believe synthesis is inapplicable if there is a strong encyclopedic scope. --Dhartung | Talk 10:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment My draft is now the new article. The previous version nominated for deletion is here. Settler (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This is one of the few instances where the "potentially endless" argument applies. There are literally thousands of notable Republicans, as one might expect from a party that has existed for more than 150 years. Mandsford (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there are sublists... and then do something like what they did with List of Jews. gren グレン 10:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep WP is a medium where a list can easily accommodate the several tens of thousand republicans who will have articles here--given that every state legislator is considered notable. It has in fact been divided like List of Jew. It does have sublists. Please look at the article before commenting based only on the name of the article which does tend to give a misconception of what is in it. The nom in fact has explained the content, but why he considers a list of the notable present political figures in the party unreasonable he has not explained-- not all the 55 million will be prominent. DGG (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Potentially endless list, sublists or no. --Calton | Talk 10:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - is (or should be) redundent to cats --T-rex 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - Per WP:CLS, categories and lists are not in competition, and preference to one or the other is not sufficient cause for deletion. Torc2 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - There's got to be some kind of guideline that says if a group is over, say, 50 or 60 million people, creating a list of it for Wikipedia might be a bad idea. Torc2 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment 50 to 60 million living Republican individuals probably would not currently meet notability requirements of Wikipedia, thus the list reaching that figure is not currently possible. Maybe in the 2830 C.E. (earlier if accounting for dead persons). Anyway the guideline states "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, list of Atheists doesn't include every individual with a Wikipedia article who happens to be an Atheist, because not all of them are notable for their Atheism. However, it might well include Sigmund Freud. See also Wikipedia:Notability (people). An exception is nationality/ethnicity. List of Elbonians would include persons who are famous in any category and who belong to Elbonia. The criteria for identifying as an Elbonian may not depend on the official citizenship laws of that country - the person could be related to the place by birth, domicile, parents, or by his or her personal admission, consider himself or herself an Elbonian at heart. Lists of people need to take into consideration Wikipedia's policy on biographical information about living people. For example, care must be taken when adding people to the list of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, and must be sourced reliably." Settler (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - It doesn't have to include every name to be large to the point of irrelevancy. 50-60 million is going to net 5-6 million notable names, which makes for a very large, very pointless directory. Torc2 (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Any consensus needs to address the related lists, including List of Democrats, List of African American Republicans, List of Latino Republicans, List of Hollywood Republicans, and possibly List of fictional United States Republicans. Compare these to focused, verifiable lists like List of United States Republican Party presidential tickets and the utility of Category:Republican Party (United States) politicians. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • comment - While I generally abhor WP:OTHERSTUFF, you've pretty much given the textbook definition of what it was created to address. Feel free to AfD those if you want (seriously, especially the fictional one), but they should not be a factor in making a decision on this AfD. Torc2 (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2008 (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.