Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Surrealist poets

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. postdlf (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Surrealist poets[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

After removing all entries whose articles did not indicate that they were surrealists (using a very liberal criterion), this small list with no explanatory material connected to it would seem to be better served by Category:Surrealist poets. There doesn't seem to be any need for both the cat and the list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are quite a few reasons to include both a list and a category per WP:AOAL, not least of which is that list pages are accessible to beginner editors. In terms of overlapping content, the argument that a cat and list are redundant is not categorized as a valid reason for deletion, according to WP:NOTDUP. That said, the list will definitely be more useful if it actually includes descriptions and sources, so those newbies have a precedent to build on. I will try add to it. OhioShmyo (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— OhioShmyo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep The nomination is contrary to WP:NOTDUP. The list has existed since 2003, before categories existed. It's clearly notable per WP:LISTN as there are numerous sources which discuss and list such poets. Andrew D. (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SALLEAD:
A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title. This introductory material is especially important for lists that feature little or no other non-list prose in their article body. Even when the selection criteria might seem obvious to some, an explicit standard is often helpful to both readers, to understand the scope, and other editors, to reduce the tendency to include trivial or off-topic entries. The lead section can also be used to explain the structure of embedded lists in the article body when no better location suggests itself.
This article provided no context and no criteria for inclusion (as indicated by the numerous entries I've already removed because their articles didn't in any way mention surrealism). The criteria appears to have been the personal opinions of the now-banned creating editor, User:Daniel C. Boyer. A small amount of context has now been added, but really not enough to give the list article significantly more value than the category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per OhioShmyo above.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP - not a valid rationale for deletion. As Andrew D. notes, it meets the criteria of WP:LISTN, and OhioShmyo as notes, there are good reasons to have lists, per WP:AOAL. The list article can be improved, but that is a matter of content, not a reason for deletion. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2019 (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.