Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of members of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts


 * 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The result was Withdrawn. Withdrawing nom, I'm obviously in the minority here, so this unsourced soup of names is going to stay. Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

List of members of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP is not the place to post a membership directory. Randykitty (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CLN and WP:NOTDUP. If it's important enough to categorize people by Category:Members of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, then a list is appropriate too. Moreover, broken up and browseable the way the list is, by discipline, it's a perfect example of the advantages of such a list, over a category. I'm a little surprised by the nomination, coming from an administrator, as WP:CLN is rather basic policy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep We have many such lists of members of learned societies. I attended an editathon on Monday which was focussed on a similar set of academics -- women classicists.  Such lists are quite helpful for such activity -- helping us identify missing topics. Andrew D. (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep especially in view of discussions like the one at Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 16 (which I disagree with, but discovered too late to contribute) according to which a list may be a better way than a category to keep this sort of information. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Lists, categories, and templates all serve different purposes, which is why we can have all three of them on a similar topic. However, exactly because they serve different goals, they also look different. A category is a bare list of wikilinked articles. A template helps in navigation. A list however, should be different. Yes, we have many lists of members of learned societies. Just click on a random one in that category and compare it to this list. Those lists give some more information than a bare list of names, which is at it should be for lists. The list under discussion here is a bare list of names, most not even wikilinked. As WP:NOTDUP (like WP:CLN a guideline, BTW, not policy) states: "lists may include features not available to categories". This is not that. I also note that the vast majority entries in this list are not sourced to anything. In short, I argue that WP:TNT applies here. --Randykitty (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm also quite baffled by this nomination. The topic meets WP:LISTN and WP:CLN. If it's missing extra context and referencing, the obvious solution would seem to be to add that information, rather than delete the article. WP:TNTTNT applies... –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – One thing that even a bare list like this can do, and categories can't, is to provide a full list of members. Such a list is useful in providing incentive to create articles and to help establishing notability, similar to lists in Category:Wikipedia missing topics. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:12, 27 January 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.