Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nazi Party leaders and officials


 * 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. Forming consensus for the categorisation of this page, either with or without the article, can be pursued editorially on the talk page (and this often works better as AfD discussions have one added element which only confuses consensus: that people can give the opinion delete).

I also find this comment to be one which makes me confident that this page can serve an encylopedic purpose into the future, and gives added value to those wanting to keep an annotated list insteading of deleting and categorising it. All-in-all, there is no consensus to delete this article outright and no consensus to delete it and turn it into a redirect.  Daniel  10:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Nazi Party leaders and officials

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a useless vandal magnet list. The kind of articles listed here are better grouped using categories; we have Category:Nazi leaders, for instance, that already substantially duplicates this article. We wouldn't lose much by just deleting the article; there is no annotation to speak of, and there are no redlinks included as potential topics to write later (they were removed so that false entries would be more easily detected). Right now it's just a drain on resources. Mango juice talk 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying it's a vandal magnet is a null-arguement. You might as well remove the pages on George W. Bush, Jesus Christ and Jaffa Cakes while you're at it. But in fairness, your weak arguement is backed up by the supporting category.  And seeing as there are no red-linked names, then I vote Delete. Lugnuts 19:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Does the category for Nazi leaders contain all these people? No. And would some of them be eligible for inclusion in that category anyway? No, because "Leader" and "Official" are two different terms. Example, Karl Brandt (clicked on randomly) probably doesn't count as a "leader", but being Hitler's personal physician and being tried at Nuremberg he can certainly count as an "official". I'd suggest a small cleanup to improve the article by noting the exact nature of their involvement with the Nazi party on the page. Tx17777 19:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:LC point 7. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I feel its a weak excuse for deletion based on possible vandalism. Callelinea 20:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep How many arguments to avoid can we fit in one deletion nom? The only one that might have merit is that it might be better served as a category, but this list can provide more information than a category could, particularly because many of the people on the list wouldn't be notable enough for their own article, but warrant inclusion in a list with historical significance such as this. Also, a category doesn't provide an at-a-glance way of determining what they did or what their position was -- something that is a short bit of information. LaMenta3 20:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It can, but it doesn't. How does this particular list provide more information than a category?  Where's all the at-a-glance information that you're talking about?  "Give this a chance to work," just like Neville said about Adolf.  It's the easy bake article, done with no effort and no attempt to make a list of names.  It's not a list of Nazi party leaders, it's a list of articles.  If someone had added a sentence about who Gunter d'Alquen was, or why Franz Ziereis is important, that would be different.  Mandsford 00:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional Delete only if a category is created for it.--Cartman005 02:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional Delete if a category is created for Nazi officers, as there is already one for Nazi leaders. Nothing here that couldn't be in a category, which solves the vandalism magnetism. Why is it that the editors who comment in these deletion discussions think it's clever to make rude comments? It doesn't make you look clever. It doesn't even make you look adult. Noroton 02:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See Category:Officials of Nazi Germany; it's "officials," not "officers" that potentially lacked its own category. Although, there are also Category:SA officers and Category:SS officers and Category:SS Non-Commissioned officers.  Actually, I think the categorization could stand to be cleaned up too, but I'll leave that to others.  Mango juice talk 12:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess it's because AfD is a snakepit where one expects to be hissed at, emotions run high when it comes to the fate of someone else's work, we're all amateurs pretending to be editors, and, sad to say, being nice usually means having your comment ignored. Which comment do you think people found more interesting -- the one about creating a category, or the one about people who don't look clever or adult?  Unless it's a direct personal attack, like "Mandsford, you are an asshole and a liar", I try not to worry about it.  Mandsford 18:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or turn into a category. 132.205.99.122 20:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep there is no rule alt all against having this list as well as a category. That somethign attrracts vandalism is solved by attention from WP editors. "Spam magnet" should never be a reason for deletion, unless we want to stop covering a large range of notable topics because we don't want to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia  by editing  them.  DGG (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For certain low-value articles that tend to attract a lot of vandalism, it seems to me that deletion is a good option if there isn't an editor interested enough in maintaining it. In this case, a category would cover the same territory just as well as it's covered now.Noroton 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Vandalism here is basically always directly damaging libel, though. That may also be the case for controversial living peoples' biographies, but since we can't do without those, the solution is to get more people to pay attention and watch for vandalism.  Here, categories make a viable alternative, and Category:Nazi leaders already mostly supercedes the list.  We have to accept vandalism when there's no alternative, but not when there is one.  Mango juice talk 12:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Question/comment -- you can watch a list for vandalism. Is there a way to watch a category (besides the individual component articles)? I could make a case that it may be harder to manage libelous vandalism by relying on a category than a list. On the other hand, I also suspect that 90+% of vandals wouldn't know to think of vandalizing using category additions. On the whole, I'd say this is a no-brainer keep except for Mango's libel concerns. -- A. B. (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, most of the vandalism here is some joker adding a redlink to the list that is probably the name of someone they know in High school. Articles like that won't stay in categories because they'll be A7 speedily deleted.  As for high-profile biographies, they are much more heavily watched than this.  (Although, if this does get kept, I imagine there will be several more watchers at least.)  Mango juice talk 13:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep....it is a helpful quick reference and map to each individual's page of each person listed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.177.74 (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions.  -- A. B. (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions.  -- A. B. (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Categorise and Delete - This kind of list only serves a useful purpose if it contains red links for articles that are needed. Categories are automatically created, and hence do not need maintenance.  They thus serve the purpose much better than lists.  Peterkingiron 19:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Update I have begun an attempt to expand this list into something a little more useful by expanding on the names listed to include a summary of what they did. I believe, given time, this could become a useful resource to use as an overview for what each of the people here did and how senior they were int he third reich's hierarchy. For now I am merely adding a sentence or two to each entry, but given time I think it can be organized into a sensible and useful page. If anyone thinks they can assist in this, please feel free. to help Tx17777 15:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no reason for this list considering the categories already exist. As it stands, I think it qualifies as listcruft as established by WP:LC. SorryGuy 05:15, 15 November 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.