Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of paleoconservative organizations


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

List of paleoconservative organizations

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Category seems superfluous; we already have. Difluoroethene (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Lists are perfectly acceptable encyclopedia content. I do question how authentic the list is, but I honestly didn't put much research into it and references for a list that is made up of Wikipedia entry is rather redundant. -- NINTENDUDE 64 01:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Lists and categories are complimentary, not exclusive. Lists provide a wealth of information. Categories are extremely basic in what they provide.– Lionel (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article completely passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Discriminate. Notable. Verifiable. Can have both a category and a list. Needs some work. Not reason for deletion. Dzlife (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. All of those are good reasons to keep, and the nomination has not refuted the presumption of notability of a sourced list. It could use some better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2011 (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.