Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmers

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmers

As with list of lawyers, this should be deleted per WP:SALAT which reads "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories." Benefix (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LC items 3, 6, 7, and 11. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is eight years old and predates the category system. In those eight years, the only that that has happened was the addition of people and the addition of Sections per alphabet letter. This would work better as a category (if it hasn't been done already) and this page deleted. Also per WP:SALAT. Tavix (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obsolete list of people that doesn't provide anything a category wouldn't Lets drinkTea 23:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The brief summary of the notable work performed by the programmer in most of the entries makes this a more useful navigational aid than a category. Also, categories cannot contain redlinks, so the information we have on (for example) Paul Abrahams would be lost if this list were deleted. While it is a broad topic, I don't think it's too broad to include. JulesH (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is still a manageable size and by including redlinks it provides something categories can't'. It also gives brief definitions of what they did, which cats can't do either. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, adds value over a category. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists are not superseded by categories - see WP:CLS. Also this list seems quite good already. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per established policy about lists and categories:

Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia.
— WP:CLS

The deletion of "Lists of lawyers" was a bad precedent, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all of the above cogent "keep" arguments. DHowell (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above cogent "keep" arguments. Lentower (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom is misreading WP:SALAT: this is broken up by alphabetical order, which classifies as category as per the use in WP:SALAT. The list should perhaps be reworked to have specific breakdowns, but most notable programmers are generally not classifiable in this fashion, with multiple claims to notability. --Cerejota (talk) 09:59, 1 March 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.