Talk:Biographical Dictionary of the Extreme Right Since 1890

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 5 August 2009 (UTC), see discussion.
keep, 20 July 2005 (UTC), see discussion.

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

Is the listing of articles really necessary? --Slowking Man 23:18, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

VfD results

This article was nominated for deletion. The result was no consensus. For details, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Biographical Dictionary of the Extreme Right Since 1890. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

For this article to be NPOV, there needs to be explanation of what the writer of this book regards as people being on the radical right, extreme right and revolutionary right. Intangible 07:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it by specifying that they are "what the author regards" as radicat right, etc. I think this fixes the NPOV problem you mention. Beltz 03:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion pasted from AfD

Comment Based on what you all have said, I would rather keep the article as a stub but take off the list of people. I think it's undue weight to define a person by what one book says about him. Also the list is not very useful to the reader since it only gives the name and birth/death dates of each person. There is no other information, say on the group he belonged to, that would make a reader pick out one name to learn more. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Does that suggest that if there was a quick mini-bio for each name that the list would be worth keeping? If so I would be happy to add them in, although I'll hold off on doing so until this nomination is closed just to ensure that there is consensus over that approach. Keresaspa (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  - Doing that would make the article much more useful and interesting. There still could be an issue with copyright if we are reprinting the book's table of contents however. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article is much better now. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's a pleasure :) Keresaspa (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article duplicates the book

There is no reason for the article to duplicate the book: an example of non-encyclopedic content. I am removing the list entires. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. The book gives no descriptions of the individuals the way the article does and an alphabetic list of names of real people cannot be placed under copyright. Keresaspa (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LANGE, Friedrich

Following both the English and German Wikipedia Friedrich Albert Lange (1828–1875) was not an Extreme Right at all. Probably the entry should refer to Lange, Friedrich (1852–1917) instead. (See e.g. [1] (in German) or [2] (in English).) --Joerg 130 (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted; I'm shamefaced I didn't notice this before. I've created an entry for him at Friedrich Lange (journalist) and will add him to the list. Keresaspa (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]