Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 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   delete. X clamation point  00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

List of lawyers

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Listcruft, should be a category Nerfari (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC) *Delete. Entirely too broad for a list - what encyclopedic usage would such a directory have? Not to mention the size, etc. of the list. Naturally, the members should be placed in Category:Lawyers or a subcat before deletion (if they aren't already). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  --  fr33k  man   -s-  18:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this is better handled as a category as the list of lawyers would be too large. WP is not the bar association membership directory. WP:NOT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, use appropriate subcategories of Category:Lawyers by type (and (Category:Fictional lawyers) instead. I suggest that any editors of the article who don't want to lose the information get started on that now, prior to deletion. TJRC (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that this is better handled as a category. -J04n (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is what categories are for. THF (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I don;'t see why this to too broad--if it is too large, the solution would be to divide it, not eliminate it. For example, we should divide out fictional lawyers. By "lawyers" is meant. as usual for all such topics,, lawyers notable enough to have WP articles or to be obviously qualified for them (major elected officials, etc.). The list can contain additional information, such as dates and locations.DGG (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A good example of where we should be using a category, not a list. dougweller (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete before it starts sporting cruft like dates and locations, which are better found in the respective articles. Compare list of physicians or the French version of this list to see where we could be heading if this isn't nipped in the bud. Benefix (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This list is wayyyy too broad and should be a category anyways. Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: this looks like a good opportunity to get rid of list of physicians at the same time, please see Articles for deletion/List of physicians . Benefix (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - it can be split but there is no need to delete since it serves a useful purpose. It is not anything like a "bar association membership directory" as the Carlos said. Malick78 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, clean up, as it is far too broad for usefulness, especially the fictional attorneys. No problem with a List and a Cat, too. Bearian (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC) After reviewing this and the List of physicians, I see no reason for deletion of this one; clean up will do. Bearian (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the stand-alone list guideline and the guideline on categories, lists, and navigation templates. "Should be a category" is not a valid reason to delete a list. As currently organized it is far more useful than the category, which due to limitations in the software is far more difficult to navigate. If the list were to expand to become too large, then it should be split into sub-lists, as recommended by the guidelines. Deletion of this list is not helpful. DHowell (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SALAT. Interesting that I'm citing the same policy as the user above me who wants to keep the article. Where I'm coming from is the section that reads "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories."  A list of lawyers is way too broad and an indiscriminate collection of information.  This information is much better in a category because nothing binds them together.  A list of defense lawyers or a list of law specialists in the field of civil rights, or something of the like would be acceptable, but "lawyers" is too encompassing for a list. Themfromspace (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2009 (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.