Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people saved by Oskar Schindler


 * 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. If it were not for the assertions of WP:CV, I would probably close this as No Consensus. But, the arguments that this is a copyvio are sufficiently persuasive that I'm going with delete. Honoring copyright is a bright line requirement. An argument that you're, not totally convinced it's copyvio isn't good enough. We need to know that it's not. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

List of people saved by Oskar Schindler

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

After a discussion at Schindlerjuden, this content was removed from that article. Now it has appeared separately. The full list is inherently non-encyclopedic. If a reliable primary source of the material exists, it could be included at Wikisource. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 06:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. May have been copied from here? The format is the same. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The list passes WP:LISTN. For example, see Schindler's Legacy: True Stories of the List Survivors or Real Schindler's list expected to make $2.4m in sale.  See also WP:NOTPAPER. Andrew D. (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a reason to have an article about the list, which we do at Schindlerjuden. It's not a reason to have a copy of the entire list.  Without the list, I believe this page to be an exact duplicate of Schindlerjuden. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete COPYVIO list No indication that the elements copied from the page linked by Clarityfiend above are "intuitive" and non-arbitrary to the point where copyright doesn't apply unless indicated otherwise. The ordering, for instance, looks to be an arbitrary creation of the website in question, and copying the exact words used to describe their occupations (even though they are in German!) is definitely not cool. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The list does look like a straight lift. Shame as otherwise I might vote keep, as this is just what we should have on Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep (or Merge back into Schindlerjuden if this list is not enough on its own) Clearly a notable list. I'm also not totally convinced it's copyvio. All of this information, including the German occupation names, would have been in the original list. I think the formatting might even be the same as on the original list, too. Linguistical (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep or return the list to the page Schindlerjuden. The list is certainly notable; as a group, the people saved are notable. I'm not sure what the concerns about COPYVIO are - the lists are over 70 years old; there are several copies of the lists; who is going to claim copyright? If there is a problem with the exact abbreviations being used, then full English equivalents could probably be used instead. The sortable table and the English translations of the occupations are useful. The reasons for not keeping the list in the Schindlerjuden article seem mainly have been that it's too long (the format of a scrollable table set within the webpage avoids that), and that it's indiscriminate! Comments included "the level of detail is excessive", and "Just a list of a thousand non-potable people" (? I would have thought non-potable meant undrinkable, so I don't know how that applies to people). I have not encountered Requests For Comment about specific pages before, but I wonder how widely it was canvassed? The comments seem very dismissive of what is a widely known list, regarded by many as highly significant. Also, I think this should have been added to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Lists of Judaism related deletion discussions.


 * Keep Notable list, even if the individual items are not inherently notable in their own right. The Oskar Schindler article is long enough as is without merging this content back in. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Schindlerjuden per all above comments. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  00:35, 2 December 2018 (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.