Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esperanto authors


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 09:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Esperanto authors

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an article about a list of notable authors of Esperanto literature. However the vast majority of the article is a massive set of redlinks, highlight that perhaps these authors are not in fact notable. Most of it is unreferenced. Since there is already a category on Writers of Esperanto literature, that category should be enough. This list is not useful. Canterbury Tail  talk  12:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, AFD is not cleanup. If there are redlinks that don't merit articles, the solution is to remove them, and then the sole question is whether there are enough viable links to merit a list, and there certainly are. Category:Writers of Esperanto literature includes 47 individuals. Per WP:LISTPURP this is a proper index of articles, and per WP:NOTDUP the category is not "enough" because there's no reason not to have complementary methods of organization/navigation. The list also can be made sortable and annotated with basic biographical data and example works, which the category cannot. postdlf (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This probably should also be renamed to List of Esperanto-language authors or List of Esperanto-language writers, per the other lists in Category:Lists of writers by language, but that's simply for normal editing to take up after this AFD is closed. postdlf (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Postdlf. Issues can be fixed by editing. --Michig (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. No issue with the article itself, although consider renaming it (as per suggestions by @postdlf and remove every red-linked entry. Ajf773 (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The article itself has no added utility over a category. In fact it is basically just a category masquerading as an article. I have started adding a bit of identifying information. I have also found at least one blue link that was clearly wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - all good points, thank you all, I'm willing to withdraw the nomination. Canterbury Tail   talk  00:43, 20 November 2017 (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.