List of Fatah members : More appropriate as a category, which already exists.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 21:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Lists of people , Military ,  and Palestine .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Not sure I understand the "no clear rhyme or reason for inclusion" point here - it appears fairly obvious that it is a largely a list of senior Fatah members, most of which are notable, though the red links of course need clearing out.  As a list of notable senior individuals within a very notable organization, there is a pretty obvious point to it.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 05:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There are 88+ Fatah-associated individuals with Wikipedia articles.  Why are some included on this list and others not?  Why are individuals without a page included on this list and others not?  What's the inclusion criteria that would make this list meet WP:NLIST ?  What's the point of this page instead of just the category?  There's also a strong argument to be made that the page should be blanked because nothing is sourced.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 05:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As I said, they are senior.  Are you suggesting that you are unable to find sources out there in the world that provides a list of senior Fatah personnel?  WP:BEFORE applies just as much to list deletion discussions as any other, and notability is based on the literature available out there in the world.  Did you do this?  For example here is a list of Fatah revolutionary council members, and in fact perhaps a title along those lines might help focus the scope, but lists of members of political bodies are plentiful.  Is your next AfD nomination going to be for List of Likud Knesset members ?  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 06:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey, would appreciate keeping the discussion to the article and not the editors.  But would point out WP:OTHERSTUFF and note a non-consensus AfD discussion for that article.  In addition, that the article subject is discussed as a group and group inclusion criteria is discrete, satisfying WP:NLIST in my eyes.  The Fatah article, on the other hand, does not.  There are thousands of Fatah members, and there's rightly not a List of Republican Party members , for example.  Happy to entertain a discussion about narrowing the scope of the article to the Revolutionary Council, for example, that is discussed as a group and is more defined as a possible list subject.  Longhornsg ( talk ) 06:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've split the list into founders (a very discrete group) and other senior members that represent a less discernable grouping for the aid of this thread.  Red linked entries were removed.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 07:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] An example source grouping Fatah founders specifically can be found here in an encyclopedic resource maintained by the Institute of Palestine Studies and Palestine Museum.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 07:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep in some form.  A list of Fatah founders and prominent early members has been found in this tertiary, encyclopedic source produced by the Institute of Palestine Studies , which puts that part on sound footing.  Iskandar323 ( talk ) 08:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep yes there is a category for the Fatah members, but still this list is necessary to present the members of Fatah with no page in WP.  So it is helpful for editors.  Egeymi ( talk ) 10:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but restrict to those with articles rather than red links.  Kathlene Smoot ( talk ) 00:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Agree with the above, WP:CLN specifically allows for this type of article for navigation purposes.  I think the red links should go even though they are sourced since this is a navigation list, not a normal list that needs to meet NLIST.  The list appears to have a well defined inclusion criteria (what a concept, hope it catches on), and the list looks like it is adhering to the criteria.  I just spot checked the list, not a complete check, but I think @ Iskandar323 : and @ Egeymi : have looked at the list more carefully and would have raised an inclusion issue if present.  // Timothy :: talk 00:02, 3 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep