Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American non-fiction environmental writers

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. JohnCD (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of American non-fiction environmental writers[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per the sentiments of WP:LISTCRUFT, and because the actual topic, from which the list strays, can be handled by a category. WP editors seem to have a fixation for lists of all sorts regardless of whether they are of use to readers. An article relating to the topic with actual prose may also be an idea. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the list does not stray from the topic, and, secondly, the extra information in the other columns and the sortable wikitable are both features that can not be handled by a category. Also, statistics show that some lists are useful to readers.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THere are six columns. A list is a single column. The stats for the List_of_environmental_lawsuits page is higher than I would expect but it is not comparable. Also, is that a test for notability? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, a list can have the format of a sortable wikitable, although it seems to me that calling it a table is more accurate than calling it a list. The statistics indicate interest.

—Wavelength (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove unnecessary statements. A list would allow for a presentation of this idea, and in order to meet this end, yes, prose should be added, but the list kept and revised. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 01:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But is it useful to readers? Is it worth maintaining until the end of civilisation as we know it? I would answer with a resounding "NO". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CLS tells us not to delete lists to favour categories. Warden (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An I am saying that we should favour actual prose. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a standard and sensible index of articles on a discrete and notable topic, which complements the category system for navigation and provides further information in annotations. AL has made it clear that he does not like lists, but it should also be clear to him that his understanding of relevant standards in this area is idiosyncratic and not reflective of community consensus by a long shot. Continuing to nevertheless make such deletion nominations tends towards being disruptive and POINTy rather than constructive. postdlf (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that I do not like lists. I create them and I promote them, but if they are of no use I ask for them to be deleted. And please assume good faith. A difference in our judgements on what articles should be included in WP is no reason to make the bold claim that I am out of step with the community or being POINTy. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is one exemplary list that you have started, and what desirable feature(s) does it have that this list does not have?

—Wavelength (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A discriminate list of notable writers. See also: WP:NOTDUP: "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid list per WP policy. If you think this topic additionally merits an actual prose article, write one, but don't delete it just because an article is theoretically possible - where is the logic in that? --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too much original research. list includes any author who the creators have found to have written a book which touches on any environmental subject, thus we have authors who are primary SF, like asimov, included for having 1 book (though it may be a good one). the inclusion criteria are too vague. would you include an author who wrote one essay on the subject, or wrote a testimonial for greenpeace, but was not the author of a scholarly work?. also, the term "environmental writer" means "environmentalist writer". this list includes books by Anti-environmentalists as well, like glenn beck. thats like have a list of christian writers which includes anti christian writers. having a typical book for each author is also original research. I also feel that this list is not truly useful to readers, per Liefting. I dont think it works as a parallel guide to a category.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it that Category:American non-fiction environmental writers is not irredeemable OR, but List of American non-fiction environmental writers is? postdlf (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The same would apply to the category but that is not what is being discussed here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd also disagree further with the equating of this list to "environmentalist writers", which would be about the writer's identity, not the content of their works; the entries of this list clearly show that it is targeting writers by what they write about. If there is a consensus that the title is unclear on that point (though with "non-fiction" also in the title, I don't see how it could be; "I am a non-fiction environmentalist" makes zero sense), a rename can be discussed on the article's talk page after this AFD closes. Likewise, if there is consensus not to include people for one-off books about environmental issues (such as Asimov or Beck), such inclusion criteria are to be determined on the talk page in the first instance. At minimum, it's simply not credible that none of the writers listed should be included, as there are indisputably writers who are defined by their work on this topic (such as Rachel Carson). As for the "typical book" column being OR, I don't quite get that claim. The titles are obviously verifiably written by these authors, and choosing one to represent their work in this area is in my view no more problematic than the editorial decision of what select works should be named in a biography's lede out of the writer's larger bibliography. Again, that's an issue for talk page discussion and not relevant to deletion here even if the consensus were to rename that column or remove it entirely. postdlf (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - All this is why I suggested an actual article with actual prose. A category and a list {to a lesser degree) cannot give any indication of "scale". Asimov is in a completely different "category" to, say, Paul Hawken. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – lists are useful navigational tools, often easier to use than categories. Perhaps it needs rebuilt, but deleted? Nope.Marikafragen (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.