Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Germans who resisted Nazism


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Germans who resisted Nazism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Better served as a category. Alexandria (chew out) 14:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep A category would have only the names, without background information on individual people. There are such lists in other languages, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually kind of because "I like it." There is a problem with the concept since probably some people had no problem with National Socialism itself, but were against the Holocaust and/or invading other countries. However I think we can overlook that since they all do deserve to be honored and the list will help people find their articles to learn more.  I don't see any negatives to keeping the list.  It's no problem to have both a list and a category. Borock (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep We don't give preference to categories over lists, see WP:NOTDUP for the guideline. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is a ridiculously uncompletable and thus unencyclopedic list. Look at this logically: would we allow a page called List of Germans who supported Nazism? Of course not — "support" is subjective and there are inherent problems with sourcing. The same exact thing for the converse: what connotes "resistance"? Armed struggle? Covert sabotage? Emigration and sending a letter to the editor of the Times of London? And where are the sources for that? Carrite (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will add that the leading comrades of the KPD, SPD, etc. can be alternatively listed in "prominent members" lists on those relevant pages. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Inherent problems with sourcing? Not so. I found sources for the articles I wrote, though proficiency in German may be requisite. Marrante (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I created this list after finding the original on the German Wikipedia, where most of the links are blue. I was astonished at the many names, having never heard of most of them. This list is not non-encyclopedic; rather it is a guide for those wishing to create articles on the subject. Most of the articles I created were pick-ups from the German WP and most of the sources picked up or found were likewise in German. I would never have written most of the articles I wrote had it not been for this list. Granted, there are a great many red links, but that should be no reason to delete this list. A quick perusal of the German version of the list will show that nearly all are available for translation. A category would not provide this guide for future articles. Marrante (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CLN.  Lugnuts  And the horse 18:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CLN, especially WP:AOAL --Boson (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to Lugnuts and Boson, I don't see how the Categories & Lists guideline page mentioned in the above links speaks to the questions of inherent incompletability and subjective and undefinable inclusion criteria. Carrite (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was addressing the nominator's "better served as a category". Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive, and lists have advantages, as listed at WP:AOAL, e.g. "Can include items that are not linked . . . or items for which there are [as] yet no articles." I did not think the inherent incompletability of a list was grounds for its deletion and, in any case, it was not mentioned in the nomination, so I did not address that point.  There may be grounds for specifying the criteria for inclusion more explicitly, but I don't see any insurmountable problems. Editorial judgment is, of course, required. That might provide potential for disruptive editing, but I don't think that is a reason for deletion. --Boson (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: An implied criterion for inclusion is that the people listed were notable for their resistance to Nazism; there have to be sources (mostly German, I imagine) stating that they resisted Nazism or describing actions that clearly indicate that. --Boson (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep, as the nominator fails to give a valid rationale for deletion. Cavarrone (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Per 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.
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 20:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets policies for lists. The list contains many notable individuals, which means the list is useful for navigation. With certain individuals, different sources may differ on whether they put up significant resistance, but you could say the same of almost any list grouping people by political beliefs, philosophy, artistic movement/genre, etc, and specific concerns about individuals can be handled without deleting the entire page, e.g. by explanatory text on the list. There are lots of books specifically about the German resistance against Nazism, which shows that a list of resisters is a coherent list topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, noteworthy, educational, and encyclopedic. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as encyclopedic. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)  11:03, 23 August 2012 (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.