Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of comparison 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 delete. MBisanz talk 00:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

=[[List of comparison articles]]=

:{{la|List of comparison articles}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_comparison_articles Stats])

:({{Find sources|List of comparison articles}})

Unnecessary list, does nothing that a category can't. Deprodded by author for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Actually, in response to the prodding of List of fastest-selling products, and many other articles simultaneously, I responded: "[This article should be AFD'd instead] because I think...this article, like the other articles which you have prodded for deletion, are not worthy of deletion, and rather than argue with you one on one I think a community discussion would be much more fruitful... especially in regard to the directory-type articles - a new form of article that many editors showed their support for at one of the AFD discussions". I deprodded the article as that action had not been taken, and I did not want to see the article prematurely deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of criticism and critique articles for further discussion on these types of articles.--Coin945 (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful for navigation (it may be easier to find a comparison here than find the exact wording to search for the title), and will help people seeking to develop new comparison articles by providing an indication of what's available. Policy is clear that you shouldn't delete a list just because there's a matching category: some people prefer to use lists to navigate and others prefer categories, and the policy reflects this. This could be made more useful by better division/ordering and explaining some of the less clear entries. How exactly does TPH know this was "deprodded for no reason"? Most people who deprod something have a reason even if they don't state it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as creator, and as per pretty much what Colapeninsula said.--Coin945 (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Whilst Colapeninsula is entirely correct that lists can live alongside categories, this article should be Deleted per WP:GNG, which applies to navigation lists every bit as much as it does other articles in the main space. Wikipedia's comparison articles, and groupings of such, have not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It would better serve the project as a portal, there it could perform any useful navigation functions where such notability and self-referencing issues don't apply. Rubiscous (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

:* I should have said Move to Portal:Comparisons, see discussion below. Rubiscous (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete - I agree with Rubiscous and fail to see the relevance of this list, based on the creator's personal POV in choosing the material for inclusion.--Zananiri (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

:* There is no POV involved in this list. I looked up every single Wikipedia article that was about a comparison, and then added them all to the article. I did not pick & choose, or have any agenda, or anything like that.--Coin945 (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

::: Comment: Well, it's obvious that you are fond of creating such lists, irrespective of whether or not they serve any purpose. That itself is a POV. Going by Wiki traffic, they can hardly be accepted as au fait or au courant.--Zananiri (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

::::Excuse me.... I find it offensive that you accuse me of creating lists "irrespective of whether or not they serve any purpose". I created those lists because I think the entire concept is extraordinarily useful and found no such lists on Wikipedia, and so proceeded to create them myself. I did not go out of my way to disrupt Wikipedia or anything. I did what I thought was right. And FYI, still hold onto my view that these can be extremely helpful. If not for readers, than for the behind-the-scenes people. It's a shame that all these deletion discussions have been about the articles themselves, not what we can learn from them. In every single one of those lists I made, there are *still* huge discrepancies in regard to naming...... I wonder how long it will take us to finally sort all that mess up..... :/ P.S. I don't speak French. You'll have to clarify what you mean. :)--Coin945 (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

::::* I am surprised that you have taken umbrage at what I said. In fact, if anything, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I do not object to the existence of 'lists' per se. Some are more useful than others. Perhaps you are not aware that Wiki has a list of French words and phrases used by English speakers.--Zananiri (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

::::* Of course these lists can be helpful. However, not everything has to reside within the main space. My !vote in a hypothetical WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Comparisons would be a resounding keep. It would make a very good basis for a portal IMO, as would your other articles I've !voted delete on. Your talents are misdirected. Rubiscous (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

:::::Sorry for misunderstanding you. One again, it seems that a little thing called subtext has gotten terribly lost in translation due to having to rely on text, which by itself can be easy to misinterpret... If what you are saying is accurate, then shouldn't the outcome of these AFD's be rename rather than deletion?--Coin945 (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

::::::For some reason I was labouring under the misapprehension that articles couldn't just be changed into portals automatically, I see now it's easy as pie using the move function, which would of course be the correct course of action regarding page history, authorship etc etc. Dunno if I'd call it a rename if it's exiting the article space though... portalise? portalify? :D I'll just call it a move. !vote changed accordingly, see above ^^^. I plan to do similar at WP:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_awards_and_nominations_articles, and for the record would also have done so at WP:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_criticism_and_critique_articles_(2nd_nomination) had it not closed. Rubiscous (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete - I agree with Rubiscous and nom. I can't see how this article is any better than having a category, and is unnecessary. Jucchan (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is what categories are for. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

: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.