Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of white nationalist 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

List of white nationalist organizations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Redundant list; mostly duplicates content already found in template: white nationalism.Stonemason89 (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep No problem to have both a list and a category. Info on the list seems both notable and of interest.Borock (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - this list is currently in a poor state, but that's not a reason to delete and it could become a useful navigational list. I'll flag for rescue. Claritas § 20:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Templates, lists and categories are all legitimate navigational aids, even though they tend to get out of synch. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It can be in a list article as well as a template.  D r e a m Focus  00:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Cut and paste duplicate of the category and templates. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a duplicate, but that is o.k. Someone reading one of these articles may find towards the bottom: See also List of white nationalist organizations, then the rather complicated template White nationalism, and right at the bottom Category:White nationalists. Three different navigational aids with the same effect. "See also ... list" is probably the most obvious link for new users, the template gives quicker navigation for more experienced users, and the category may be more useful for editors. There is no reason why we should not support all three. Reader convenience should trump ease of maintenance. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Lists are inherently not duplicative of categories because they can provide additional context that is unavailable with categories. This is a list of notable organizations and fully meets the requirements of WP:List. Improvements are being made where needed.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Categories, templates, and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have all 3 (except that templates are impractical if they get too large, which is not relevant here(. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing.  Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list--and vice-versa.  DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The WP:CLN guideline specifically allows a category, list and template on the same topic to co-exist.  Different people prefer to navigate in different ways so having all three is normally helpful (except, for example, when a template gets too big).  As stated above lists can also contain extra information that cannot exist in templates or categories meaning they should in no way be redundant. Dpmuk (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2010 (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.