Deletion of List of Polish lawyers

Comment: The nom's initially stated concern is the redlinks.  He is correct -- to the extent that they do not have appropriate refs -- that they should be deleted.  But AfD is not for cleanup.  That issue aside, the list is appropriate -- as already pointed out above -- per  and .  Additionally, as reflected in :Category:Lists of people by occupation and nationality, we have many such lists, which reflects that convention
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:NOTDUP||WP:CLN)

Comment: without diminishing the |clean up issues, this is a completely standard index of people by occupation and nationality, as a complement to the category, not redundant to it.  See .  It's standard with this kind of list (any group of X for which not every X is notable: films, books, companies, etc.) to limit it to only those entries that merit articles (of which there are apparently 96 judging from the category, not all of which are presently in this list).  That's not hard to do, that's not a controversial inclusion criterion.  Prune the non-notable entries and that problem is solved; it would no longer be a "directory".  Yet reading through this deletion discussion, it seems as if most of the commenters here are completely unfamiliar with CLN and with ordinary list practices because they can't seem to imagine how this list could be improved.  Like any other list of people, it could and should be expanded beyond a bare alphabetical list: turn it into a sortable table with columns for birth date and death date, locale of practice, area of practice, or other annotations that a category cannot provide
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTCLEANUP||WP:CLN)

Comment: No lawyers should be on the list unless they have an article. The list in itself is perfectly acceptable to complement the accompanying category - see  ("''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. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:NOTDUP)

Comment: If kept, I would urge that -- per  -- all entries that do not have a wp article, and that do not have independent RS refs supporting their notability and their fitting the criteria of this list, be deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LISTPEOPLE)