Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Alberta-related topics

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 delete all that aren't stricken. If you wish to have the pages restored to "projectify" them, please leave me a note on my talk page. Thanks. Majorly (hot!) 14:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alberta-related topics

On April 3, 2007, User:Piotrus initiated a mass AfD against hundreds of "list of topics" articles. The discussion was closed as a "procedural keep" ... there were simply too many articles to process. So, I am nominating for deletion a smaller subset of articles, grouped together due to particular similarities; in this case, all the articles are lists of topics by region. I propose that the articles be deleted for the following reasons:

They are inferior to existing categories in terms of organisation. Many of them list articles alphabetically as opposed to by topic.
The lists are hopelessly incomplete. They have not been maintained for a long time and given Wikipedia's rate of expansion, it's unlikely that they can be maintained. As I understand it, the lists were created before categories existed and once the category system was devised, the lists became useless.
As User:Piotrus noted in his initial nomination, the lists are "are dead weight that may occasionally distract a new user and make them waste their time adding something to those forgotten ... pages". -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

delete per nom. Pete.Hurd 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Luke! 03:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Haemo 04:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has its uses.--T. Anthony 04:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, the ever-persuasive "has its uses" argument notwithstanding. Otto4711 05:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh. I just didn't feel up to giving my full reasoning at this hour. Maybe tomorrow.--T. Anthony 05:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - List is useful for monitoring recent changes in a particular topic. Articles in categories cannot be monitor recursively. Category cannot give one page summary of all articles under that category tree as list does. If Wikipedia can generate the lists automatically, no one need to care about missing items. — HenryLi (Talk) 12:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the thing ... the list isn't updated or maintained. Also, whereas categories are usually organised by topic, most of these lists are just alphabetical. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it somehow contradictory to your third argument? In fact, every article in Wikipedia is updated or maintained occasionally. Yes, list is not complete, but there is no replacement for summary purpose right now. The function of category is pretty limited at this moment. An incomplete list is better than nothing at all. If one day an improved category module can serve equivalent purpose, say recursive listing all sub-categorised articles, it is the time to make these lists obsolete. — HenryLi (Talk) 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A summary can be added to a category, by editing the category page. --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 16:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm undecided on whether or not I think the list should be deleted, but a category can be very limiting when compared to a list. A list basically has the full functionality that a wiki entry has. In a list, you can change the text of a wikilink, you can give a short summary of each item in the list, you can have red-links, etc etc. A category cannot achieve any of these. However, I do recognise that these lists above are very long and difficult to maintain. I'm not sure if that is criteria to delete anything though. It seems to me a lot of things on WP are nominated for deletion when what they need is just a lot of editing work. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        A list is superior to a category if it can provide information that the category cannot. All of these lists are alphabetical and provide no details about the articles. Normally, I do not consider "redundant to a category" to be a valid reason for deleting lists for all of the reasons you've stated above. However, I don't think these lists should provide details on the articles. Category:Alberta alone includes thousands of articles. A list that included all of them, with descriptions, would be awfully long, messy, and effectively unusable. More importantly, the purpose of such lists is only to aid navigation. ... Is it really worth the effort to improve all of these lists when an equivalent navigation system already exists? Would that time not be better spent improving other articles/lists that provide information beyond simple navigation? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand that something being "useful" doesn't necessarily mean it should be kept, per WP:USEFUL. But conversely, is it cause for deletion if a list is not useful? That seems to be what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong. Some of the reasons cited for deleting these lists seem to me to actually mean that they need editing work instead. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The argument that a list ought to be deleted because it is "not useful" is a rather weak one, as it can be invalidated by a single person claiming that he or she finds the list useful. In this case, my argument that the lists are not useful was invalidated by T. Anthony. However, I'm also arguing that lists are harmful by distracting editors from more useful editing. Why spend time to develop a navigation system that is redundant and inferior to an existing one? -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Editors would work on this because they wish to, just like most everything else. The idea they'd be making better use of their time without it is plausible, but ultimately just speculation. Lists also can allow for expansion on topics. (Admittedly Canada is not a good example of that as it's very well covered at Wikipedia, but List of Xinjiang-related topics might be an example) Lastly I kind of prefer scrolling down to clicking various "next 200" deals. So I often prefer lists when it comes to navigation.--T. Anthony 00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It is speculation, but as you noted, it's rather plausible. Lists can be used for article development, but these lists contain few if any redlinks. In those cases that they do have redlinks, they do not state why an article on the topic ought to be created (or even what the topic is). I also prefer scrolling to clicking through multiple pages ... but I don't think any of the main categories (e.g., Category:Alberta and Category:Xinjiang) contain more than 200 entries. If such situations do arise, it's probably necessary to move articles to appropriate subcategories or create new subcategories. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a question - is difficulty in maintenance a criteria for AfD? Because for some of these lists, it's nearly impossible to keep them updated at all times. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose it can be, although I'm generally wary of such arguments, as technically all articles are difficult to maintain in that they require constant updating. Perhaps the argument carries more weight if an article is especially difficult to maintain, is currently not maintained by any editor(s), and no one volunteers to maintain the lists. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - They can be replaced by categories. Keeping these lists is unnecessary duplication. (Well... this AfD could already be assumed as a mass deletion to me...) --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. This is the sort of thing that categories are for. That it may be useful to someone - or even an entire WikiProject - is not a valid argument for keeping something. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all even the well organized California list is a senseless mishmash of natural science, history, culture, links to other lists, transportation articles, and miscellany. Categories can organize these geographically-similar articles much more effectively. --Helm.ers 18:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hesitant Delete - I did not like this concept when I saw it long time ago. They are nearly impossible to maintain, and overlaps the use of categories. 22:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I don't think there is any difficulty in maintaining these lists. Appropriate articles can be added once created allowing for constant expansion which in itself these lists are far from done and need to be worked on. NorthernThunder 23:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. They are neither useful nor encyclopaedic, and are functionally unmaintainable.Sarcasticidealist 00:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete all~~ and use categories as they were intended. This idea of listing everything is getting out of hand. --Ezeu 15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Projectify to Wikipedia:WikiProject Alberta using Wikipedia:WikiProject India/List of India-related topics as an example. --Ezeu 19:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a question about striking out the Taiwan list - the reasons that are listed here to support deletion, wouldn't they be applicable to lists for countries as well as "regions"? I don't understand why lists for countries are not part of this AfD. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well ... I had started another AfD on lists of countries here, but the consensus is overwhelmingly to keep. The reason is that countries, unlike regions, have active WikiProjects. These lists serve as a sort of watchlist for members of those projects, allowing them to monitor recent changes via the "Related changes" link in the sidebar on the left. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many of these "regions" have WikiProjects themselves. Wouldn't the same reason to keep apply to these lists? I can safely say that WikiProject Hong Kong is active. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If any WikiProjects are willing to move the articles to their subpages, I certainly won't object ... in fact, I may just drop a note on various talk pages to see if any are willing to take these pages. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all even if they are ugly and of little use, there's still no valid reason for deletion. They eventually will be organised and put to a better use. --Qyd 21:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In order to achieve a compromise between those who wish to see the content deleted and those who wish to see it kept, I have begun projectifying those lists which have an associated WikiProject. That achieves the dual goals of removing the poor-quality lists from the article mainspace and preserving the content for use by those editors most involved in the subject. Please let me know if you find this to be an inappropriate compromise and if I should stop or perhaps even undo my actions. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would object to projectifying "country-related topics" articles because of the prominence of some articles and the desire to make them accessible to readers. Understandably, if the country-wikiproject wish to projectify it, then they should have the choice; but it would create an awkward situation with articles in different namespaces. As for "region-related topics" articles, i currently have no strong opinion. However, please note that after making the move, there are some mainspace links to the wikipedia-space (e.g. [1], [2] ); are you going to fix those links and how? --Vsion 04:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to projectify the "Lists of country-related topics" articles or even to try to argue that they should be projectified. I am even considering asking WikiProject India whether they would agree to let me reverse my move of List of India-related topics to the Wikipedia-space. In regard to the cross-namespace links, the standard at Wikipedia:Redirect and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion is that cross-namespace redirects are to be deleted only if they contain no useful history and do not serve as plausible search terms. The redirects resulting from projectifying do not contain useful edit history, but do serve as plausible search terms. Thus, I am inclined to see them kept, at least for the near future. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not refering to the redirects, but rather to the wikilinks. In general, with some exceptions, articles in the mainspace should not have links to the wikipedia-space. For example, the article Ontario now has a link (redirected) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ontario/List of Ontario-related topics. --Vsion 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I checked this for various articles and found that almost all of the links are either from "See also" sections (those can be deleted) or from templates like Template:Canadian provinces summary table and Template:Topics on Alberta (these can be unlinked/removed). I will not take any additional action regarding these lists until it is closed. If the discussion is closed as "keep", I will undo the moves I've done so far. If the discussion is closed as "projectify", I will projectify the rest and take care of any cross-namespace links. If the discussions is closed as "delete", I will appeal to the closing admin to projectify the lists. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 16:12, 26 April 2007 (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.