Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of neurologists

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 no consensus. The community here is roughly evenly divided, even after the relisting. Given that the article has some redlinks not in the category, and some short notes regarding the time period the neurologist lived, the "redundant to a category" argument holds less merit. I cannot delete here without a consensus to do so, and at present I cannot see one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of neurologists

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

An article that lacks any sources and the list looks very short for a comprehensive list Fasach Nua (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This five-year-old article, classic stale Wikipedia, could have been so much more, but it doesn't contribute any relevant information that isn't accomplished by Category: Neurologists. I'm not a category zealot, but listing nationality and dates of existence reveals nothing about their contribution to the science. Mandsford (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The correct implied meaning is List of notable neurologists, where notable means having a Wikipedia article, not the list of all the neurologists in the world. They are all neurologists, and all notable. (the redlinks can be easily fixed, usually by writing the missing articles) . The list does more than a category could, for it gives the date and the country. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. 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, and there is. there should be a list DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per established precedent on this kind of list article which serves as a kind of disambiguation page for notable figures in the field. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wholly pointless, redundant of Category:Neurologists. Lara 14:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per DGG's reasoning. I don't think Wikipedia will be much better for keeping it nor do I think it will be much worse for getting rid of it. Location (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page seems to straddle the rather fine line between being a legitimate list and a random compilation of links that would be better suited as a cat. For the most part I agree with Lara's reasoning, so I say delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Lists and categories are complementary, not mutually exclusive, and the list is more informative than the category. There is lots of room for improvement, but deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 01:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant to a cat. — Jake Wartenberg 03:44, 24 October 2009 (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.