Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Polish lawyers

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. Like it or not, the consensus is keep. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish lawyers

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

I became aware of this list after writing an article about one of the persons listed here. It's a huge unsourced alphabetical dump of mostly redlinked names with no further information or context. It might be useful in user or project space as a to-do list if anybody is interested, but as a mainspace article I don't see the point of it in this form (not to mention the possible WP:BLP issues). Sandstein 23:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unencyclopedic, uncompletable, and unsourced directory. Carrite (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles never have to be completable. Nor do you need sources for blue links to other articles that have the information proving they are legitimate entries to this list. Dream Focus 23:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This article could use some improvements, but it does have a discriminate focus as being comprised of notable lawyers. I've added several references to the article, so at this time it is no longer unsourced. The article could use more sourcing and inline citations and an expansion of its lede. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete. This is about as useless as dozens - hundreds - of others lists of people that are redundant to existing categories. If it is deleted, so should all the others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See my comment below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no content beyond the list. This is why we have categories. Unmaintainable list. Not clear what the inclusion criteria are either. RadioFan (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See my comment below. Also, the inclusion criterion seems very clear, per the lede sentence in the article: "The following is a list of notable Polish lawyers", with notable being the key criteria. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a prime example of why Wikipedia has categories. Completely redundant article. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See the WP:NOTDUP editing guideline: "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. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps but there is no evidence here that this list will may be enhanced with features not available to categories. The bigger concern here isn't the format but that there is no clear rational for this list and it is unmaintainable as a result.--RadioFan (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 34 blue links. That's enough for a list. If there is nothing saying the other names are notable, then remove them. Dream Focus 17:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list doesn't add any extra information beyond what is already provided by the category. — Kpalion^(talk) 02:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Directory-style page; a category could express all useful content better and avoids maintenance issues. Neutrality^talk 06:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and drastically reduce - No lawyers should be on the list unless they have an article. The list in itself is perfectly acceptable to complement the accompanying category - see 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. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided"). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and Carrite. The criterion for inclusion is too broad. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? We have even broader categories, that are well accepted across the project -- such as notable people from country x. You can find them at: Category:Lists of people by nationality. This fits squarely within both established policy and established practice.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If kept, I would urge that -- per WP:LISTPEOPLE -- all entries that do not have a wp article, and that do not have independent RS refs supporting their notability and their fitting the criteria of this list, be deleted.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, without diminishing the clean up issues, this is a completely standard index of people by occupation and nationality, as a complement to the category, not redundant to it. See WP:CLN. It's standard with this kind of list (any group of X for which not every X is notable: films, books, companies, etc.) to limit it to only those entries that merit articles (of which there are apparently 96 judging from the category, not all of which are presently in this list). That's not hard to do, that's not a controversial inclusion criterion. Prune the non-notable entries and that problem is solved; it would no longer be a "directory". Yet reading through this deletion discussion, it seems as if most of the commenters here are completely unfamiliar with CLN and with ordinary list practices because they can't seem to imagine how this list could be improved. Like any other list of people, it could and should be expanded beyond a bare alphabetical list: turn it into a sortable table with columns for birth date and death date, locale of practice, area of practice, or other annotations that a category cannot provide. postdlf (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define a "non-notable" entry? In case you've forgotten, this article is titled "List of Polish lawyers", not "List of notable Polish lawyers". It should either document all Polish lawyers, otherwise it should be deleted. With over 38 million people living in Poland, I suppose a fair number of those are lawyers. Are you going to pour over all the directories and search for each individual Polish lawyer? I can live with and happily support List of Polish lawyers from Gdańsk University, List of Polish lawyers from the University of Warsaw, or List of Attorneys of the Treasury (Poland), but to endorse the existence of a broad list as such this list is tantamount to endorsing the creation of List of Indian lawyers, List of British lawyers, List of Canadian lawyers, List of American footballers, List of American lawyers, List of Indian cricketers, and every other impossibly broad lists. @Postdlf, when you say "Prune the non-notable entries and that problem is solved," don't you think your request/suggestion is totally not consistent with the article's topic, which is supposed to document every Polish lawyer? I strongly urge the closing admin to ignore all rules in this case -- he/she doesn't have to follow WP:CLN. Furthermore, how can anyone know that some of these entries aren't non-existent people? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, your comment from start to finish is a bunch of nonsense. A notable entry is a notable article subject, i.e., one that merits their own article, the same general standard we use across the board for articles about people. It's not a standard I've invented here specific to this topic or list; had you never seen the term "non-notable" before? It's just a matter of convention that it's titled "List of Polish lawyers", not "List of Polish lawyers that merit articles". Again, this is nothing new. Note the titles at Lists of people by occupation; List of lists of films; Lists of books; Category:Lists of companies by industry... In all of those cases, the lists are restricted to only notable entries yet we do not bother to put "notable" in the title (nor is it Category:Notable Polish lawyers, for that matter, yet no one takes the category name as an invitation to create articles for every Polish lawyer). "It should either document all Polish lawyers, otherwise it should be deleted." Um, no. You really need to get more familiar with list practice and standards before making such ridiculous demands. "How can anyone know that some of these entries aren't non-existent people?" The same way that we can know that an individual article's subject isn't a non-existent person. postdlf (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied that the non-notable entries have been purged, but I still strongly support a different, more specific list. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 22:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nom's initially stated concern is the redlinks. He is correct -- to the extent that they do not have appropriate refs -- that they should be deleted. But AfD is not for cleanup. That issue aside, the list is appropriate -- as already pointed out above -- per WP:NOTDUP and WP:CLN. Additionally, as reflected in Category:Lists of people by occupation and nationality, we have many such lists, which reflects that convention.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm always concerned with redlink purges wiping out potentially viable article topic lists; that's one of the reasons why we started making lists in the first place so long ago, as to-do lists. postdlf (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand. But the rules in lists of people are different than the rules elsewhere. They are pretty clear in WP:LISTPEOPLE. I can understand the rationale, as I've worked at cleaning up many such lists. They are highly attractive targets for vandals and the like. It is a cost-benefit analysis, and the cost is higher here than in many other places. Plus, the benefit is much lesser, and verifiability is a core policy of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs cleanup and accompanying text. It won't ever be a complete list, but topic is likely to be notable and have room for expansion. --124.176.43.195 (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been revamped by myself. See talkpage for summary of changes I have made and the reasoning. I am satisfied that concerns raised in this AFD have been taken into account and that the article, per WP:NOTDUP, now adequately complements the category. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To the extent that concern has been voiced as to the length of the list, a) it was never really that long by wp standards [7,099 bytes]; b) it isn't long now [5,762 bytes]; and c) if editors are interested in long lists, they might take a look at List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters ‎[393,529 bytes], which is our longest page at the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How much more information does this offer than the Category:Polish lawyers. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far, it offers: a) birth years; b) death years; and c) refs. Plus, editors can add names to it that are redlinks and will not appear in the cat, as long as they add proper refs to the names. And oh -- should they wish to, as is convention in many list articles, they could adorn the list with images of the entries in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 06:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable list of people on a notable topic. BLP issues can be addressed by the biography article itself. Lugnuts (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Lugnuts says, it's a perfectly acceptable list that may have initially required a clean up, but not deletion. This seems to be yet another time consuming AfD made by someone who doesn't like, or understand the purpose of List articles! Sionk (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize: This seems like it work much better as a category than an article Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Purple. With all due respect, they are not mutually exclusive. See WP:NOTDUP.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I just prefer list articles that add something that can't be done in a cat. Right now this list adds birth and death dates. It'd be even better if it could add something else, like areas of legal expertise, for example Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why couldn't it add that, and other information? It seems like you're judging the list purely based on its current state rather than on its potential, which is inappropriate for AFD: "delete because no one has yet developed it into what it can be." postdlf (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The original reason given , that there were mostly red-links, was a reason for editing, not deletion, and the article has now been edited to contain only those people about whom we an article. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. The list can, and should have some additional context added. But if we don't keep articles while they are being developed, there will be nothing left to develop. there is no deadline for improvements. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 27 January 2012 (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.