Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of laser articles

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of laser articles

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can be replaced by the category system. Otherwise, there is no notability for this article: Lasers are definitely notable, but this article seems to be an administrative article.Curb Chain (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. Much of this material is only loosely related to lasers anyway, the more relevant topics can be found by other means more easily than here. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems to serve navigation/development purposes as per WP:LIST does it not? --Stvfetterly (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a purely administrative article, as it only lists articles which exist on wikipedia. That is why the category system is sufficient and this is redundant. I can't imagine how adding references can improve functionality of this page, as it only proves the articles are notable, which is redundant as only notable topics have articles on wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a new article I just created, and it will be more notable for I only have it linked to a couple of articles. If you look at Index of radiation articles which has only 128 views in its statistics for that month that was created in 2005 and is not complete yet, which is kinda underrated since radiation is a huge x factor in science. If you think this article has loosely material relating to lasers than maybe I can delete the below semi laser related links to it. This laser list is good because it has a rack load of red links that one day could be created to a article, so its good to keep in touch with this article for it benefits people who want to find a laser specific field of interest. Seems like you curb only want to delete articles I created List of infrared articles,List of plasma (physics) articles and not try to help improve articles for this list will not harm anything and adding it to a category will make it less notable since some people have no clue of categories, plus Wikipedia category list does not show up on Google's search bar.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In this case Categories are much more effective way of organising articles.21:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pit-yacker (talk • contribs)
~~Delete~~ [Comment] per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Picking a broad physics topic, making and populating a list article, then spamming the See Also sections of any related article in order to drive up the page views of the list article is not a sustainable model. --Kkmurray (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing this to a comment. On reflection, this is a WP:UGLY/WP:LINK issue not a content issue. --Kkmurray (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I picked it because its my passion and its vital to science. How does it indiscriminate to anything it is not a Excessive listings of statistics its a list of laser topics to help others find laser topics or a specific laser field. Spamming is when it relates to nothing of that topic or is sending garbage info to it, linking list of lasers to see also is not spamming plus I don't link every laser topic only if its related enough to it. I just use the statistics chart as a example of how notable it is and compare it with others. I do not get any credit fame or reward for NO2 overdrive boosting the statistics up. If this laser list is deleted than almost all of Wikipedia's list of articles on whatever topic should all be deleted example, Index of wave articles, Index of solar energy articles ,Index of energy articles, Index of radiation articles, List of Pokémon characters, and List of Pokémon, 90% of the world has no clue of these dinosaur like pokemon plus it has no use in real life. Like User:Stvfetterly said it meats Wikipedia's standards WP:LIST. Just curious how does this all play out if more people vote for it to be deleted would it be deleted.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a valuable laser list source to find other laser topics to it.Halo laser plasma (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)— Halo laser plasma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete (or permanently userfy if the creator wants to keep it for personal reference): This unencyclopedic list of articles does not belong in article space. Categories are the Wikipedia way of handling this kind of organization. —teb728 t c 04:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:NOTDUP, "redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Categories and list articles can exist simultaneously, to further accommodate user browsing per various user preferences. Also, per this section of the editing guideline, ..."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." Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not. That is why it should be deleted on the basis that it is not notable. With your reasoning, which should have exact copies of articles for every category we have.Curb Chain (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the list meeting the purpose of lists on wikipedia (WP:LIST) and Northamerica1000's reasoning - does not meet valid deletion reason.--Stvfetterly (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need navigation list articles like this where categories do not do the job as well. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A useful list that hurts nothing. I'm going to copy someone's comments from another deletion discussion: per WP:NOTDUP, "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." I think arguing that it would be better served as a category also violates the spirit of these guidelines, as saying that something should be categorized does not appear to be a valid reason to delete a list. Both can exist simultaneously. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and revamp as Outline of lasers. The nominator is correct in that this is not an appropriate list article. In lieu of deletion, resorting this as an WP:OUTLINE would be a viable option. Them From Space 15:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep or Strong keep for I did not know about these extra terms, but if the speedy keep does not count as a keep vote than put Strong keep. Iv'e deleted about 85 laser articles, most of them where long so that should cut down on its loading time, plus I deleted some [[]] bracket links. I found a few vital Laser articles, like SASER, Sound Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, which is kinda rare to find. A lot of these laser articles I found for this laser list will make them more notable along with creating articles for the laser red links articles. I thought about making it a outline but usually outline's need a short definition, plus theirs a huge laser word column where you don't have to read the laser part just the part after it like Laser broom, Laser bullet system and so forth just read the broom part much faster to scan. It could be called a index but list sounds more known. The laser category is not really a category right now, and if it was some people have no clue about it, plus both would be good to have. Teb this is kinda a encyclopedia it just does not have definition's next to it, even Encyclopedia of Laser Physics and Technology does not have it right next to it.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This might be off track for it is copied from List of plasma (physics) articles. I also use this laser list as a fantasy/real science plasma guide. Ball lightning has numerous theories involving plasma mechanisms like Buoyant plasma hypothesis, some of these plasma equations help back up the theory to discover how ball lighting works plus its like a euphoria effect of encountering something new. By having ball lightning and these plasma mechanisms along with plasma equations to back it up inputting it right underneath ball lightning in a outline detail, is all that to much or just keep it basic like plasma space propulsion, plasma confinement fusion and so on. Where is the detail for plasma window from physics of the impossible is it not aloud to go into such detail, this plasma window along with other factors like laser curtain, carbonnanotube screen along with photochromatics to stop absorb or some kinda refraction reflection material to absorb the laser pulse beam with environmental x factors that might hinder this aegis series of shields like index of refraction, suns blazing rays, clod cover over cast sky or the enemy using a full force of a cosmic meteoroid impact clash so the timing of the tides earth rotation to hurl that meteoroid in the enemy's control, make sure your equipped with a airborne laser sensor to track and time your frequency laser switch from the intercontinental ballistic Missiles and preventing these projectiles infra red radiation or sonic spaser laser taser phaser gaser hazer saser maser hazer blazar quasar invader raider anything that has ASER at the end and every elemental cosmic atomic bomb force microwave any thing u can think of like a laser fence/mosquito laser that needs to know what kinda malaria wing pattern beat is the real malaria causing vector or else it will laser zap every vital mosquito specie. The point of all this is that wikipedia just explains in simple terms and not every detail or any extreme sequence of events that do play a role for the future. I understand these plasma laser infrared list are okay but wikipedia will not allow it to be like a text/fantasy real deal intrigueing article page, yes a plot summary with bloopers extra possible outcomes that might throw off the main concepts but why does it have to be a thriller or descent movie to be in Wikipedia, we can add all these events into a outline without names of movie characters overloaded with romance and box office money statistics, it sounds like it will get out of line chaos editors with random vandalizing jokes, but theres a way to keep it professional for a Plasma/laser outline fantasy article with relevant/wikipedians. Example imagine this list of plasma articles now imagine next to it saying list plasma/laser/fantasy real science kind stuff but locked to certain point for trusted wikipedians, but a side page where u add notes and if your serious they add u to the major laser palsma fantasy list league, this is obvious and easy not to get off track cause the headline will be next to it, what's the problem? plus it will say novice or expert or fantasy possible virtual world. Wikipedia has potential to be universalpedia by borrowing wikipedia articles and saying hey thanks wikipedia for the upgrade, everyone's happy gilmore with more knowledge and less stress on just solving plasma equations with no NO2 to rage the bonfire adventure mind and than leading to a insane migraine. Is there a way to have it A-P and than Q-Z separate list to reduce loading time for possible future outline/glossary or is that only for category style.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think this should be moved to the category space. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 05:39, 16 February 2012 (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.