Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama (disambiguation)


 * 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, category is more appropriate. Nakon 05:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC) per consensus at DRV  this has been overturned as no-consensus Spartaz Humbug! 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

List of topics related to Barack Obama

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

NOTE: This AfD was originally for Barack Obama (disambiguation). During the course of the AfD, Barack Obama (disambiguation) was moved to List of articles related to Barack Obama by. Then it was moved to List of Wikipedia articles related to Barack Obama by. Then it was moved to List of topics related to Barack Obama by. Who knows where it will be tomorrow?

Misguided attempt to reinvent categories. Also, an apparent misuse of a disambiguation page. Normal Wikipedia mechanisms like blue links, templates and categories serve this function perfectly adequately. Scjessey (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This is not the proper use of a disambiguation page.keystoneridin! (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Obviously per nom. — R  2  15:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of articles related to Barack Obama, remove the disambig template, and keep. This looks like a classic list to me. It's not equivalent to a category because a category would lose the grouping into subtopics. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it really needed though? We have the Obama template(s), categorizes and Wikiproject. I'm sure people can find his articles quite easily. Just a thought anyway. — R  2  15:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename as per above. The Ogre (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (creator) I have renamed the article per the suggestions. This will also allow the templates to be included at the bottom (I'm not sure if the categories are okay or not). There are lots of articles related to Obama and it's helpful to have a list type article for navigation. It's not always intuitive what articles are included on Wikipedia and what they're called, so hopefully this provides a helpful navigation aid by including the breadth of coverage in one place. It was interesting working on it because there were all these random articles I didn't know about (and of course mroe to add). Categories have their limitations and many casual readers don't use them properly. As is indicated above, a list also presents the information in a different way and allows for additional information to be included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should have done this until the discussion is over. You can't just move a page to avoid deletion. If I knew how to do an unmove, I would. As a result, to avoid any kind of wikilawyering regarding the outcome of this AfD, I am changing this AfD to represent the article for which you moved the disambig page to. - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 16:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is completely against normal process, which should allow 7 days before any action. That's in the second sentence at WP:AFD, in fact. Highly inappropriate behavior. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You can nominate Barack Obama (disambiguation) for speedy deletion as a non-controversial move since the AfD is still in progress by adding, then move it back.  When the final resting place for the list is decided upon (unless consensus is deletion), it can be moved back, or to the new location.  The template still has the old location listed in it, I have had trouble with pages that got deleted via AfD but were moved during the process, the AfD template keeps the original location, and the page does not get sorted right.--kelapstick (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't read AFD like that at all. I see no reason an article on AfD can't be improved during the process to deal with the stated reasons for deletion, and thus to avoid deletion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't improvement. The content is the issue as raised by the AfD nom, not the name of the page or location of it. Therefore it shouldn't have been moved. - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 17:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If the name isn't in question, what's wrong with moving it then? Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In part. "misuse of a disambiguation page" as part of the deletion rationale is directly related to the name/title of the article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then how is moving to a better title a problem? If this article is acceptable, a better title is an improvement (same as adding references to an unsourced article), and if it's not, I don't see how it really matters.  Nyttend (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This may be water under the bridge, but for what it's worth, I don't see the problem here at all. That CoM would do this to "avoid" deletion, as if the nominator wouldn't be aware of a renaming, that's pushing AfD discussion into bad faith assumptions. If this is a better title and thus makes for a better article that stands a chance of survival, then there's nothing wrong here, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep- At first I arched an eyebrow on seeing the title, wondering if it was some kind of attack page. On clicking the page, I saw that it was renamed, and that it was actually a pretty good idea for a list. I'm wondering if it could be used as some kind of template/example for grouping together articles on other presidents, like Bush Jr., Ronald Reagan, or FDR. I don't know if *every* president would need a page like this, but I think it would be helpful in allowing people new to wikipedia to navigate their way through such obviously related articles. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename Merge Keep Meh, sorry about all the “changing my mind”, but I'm definitely staying with this now; I've been persuaded by the comments below that this is a useful page. Easier to navigate then categories, and allows one link to a page containing all related pages, rather then lots of links to pages with small amounts of related pages. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep although it might be better as (another rename, except after the AfD) Outline of Barack Obama, similar to Outline of Canada, Outline of mining, Outline of the United States etc. A brief (2-3 paragraph) introduction, then the sectioned off lists.--kelapstick (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:COATRACK, there is nothing in this list that isn't already accomplished by self-maintaining categories, without the NPOV/BLP problems --guyzero | talk 16:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you be a little more specific about what NPOV/BLP problems there are in the article at the moment? I'm not really seeing what you mean. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, though I'm not sure if a content discussion is appropriate here. OK with me for this to get moved to Talk, as long as my original !vote stays. For starters, as of now, the article lists 3 controversial figures as Obama's only "Associates", violating both NPOV (balance) and BLP (it is debatable whether these figures are indeed Associates.) I'm sure this simple label issue can eventually be resolved with the usual BRRRRRRANI cycle. ;-) Note that two of the three figures are already in the top-level Category:Barack_Obama. This is a side discussion only. My primary argument for delete is WP:COATRACK and WP:LISTCRUFT #7, #11 and likely #1, #6 and it is clearly redundant against self maintaining categories, summary style in-line links, and the wikiproject. IMO, if you think that cats in general could be more useful (and I agree with you), it might be better to recommend changes to the cat system to increase its usability rather than create a band-aid to work around the perceived non-usefulness. thanks, --guyzero | talk 17:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the two links (WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:COATRACK) you (guyzero) provided are both essays. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, those essays cascade BLP and NPOV and provide a handy shortcut so I don't have to retype all of that information here. Note that WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are policy. thanks, --guyzero | talk 17:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid - "Lists of Wikipedia articles belong in the Portal namespace, as discussing Wikipedia contents." --Onorem♠Dil 16:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment that would seem to warrant a "move to portal space" recommendation, not deletion, per WP:PRESERVE, which, by the way is official policy and trumps the self-ref guideline. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The information is already preserved in multiple templates, but I don't see any reason to oppose moving the information to portal space. --Onorem♠Dil 18:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Categories and templates have their limitations and are not always inviting to inexperienced users of Wikipedia. Also, are we going to include all the categories and all the templates on all of these articles? If not, this allows for a single see also to steer readers to the breadth of content related to this subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm not a big fan of categories, personally, and find that lists are much easier and more user-friendly to maneuver through. I've never been a big fan of the "delete because its redundant to a category" notion, because I don't think its really a good reason for deletion. I tend to think lists at their best can be more complimentary than redundant. Just my $.02Umbralcorax (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as List of articles related to Barack Obama it is a useful navigational aid and organizes topics into sub-topics, something categories can't do. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Onorem who pointed out: Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid - "Lists of Wikipedia articles belong in the Portal namespace, as discussing Wikipedia contents." - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 17:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment that would seem to warrant a "move to portal space" recommendation, not deletion, per WP:PRESERVE, which, by the way is official policy and trumps the self-ref guideline. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This list serves a navigational function.  It helps the reader to find information about a notable subject, and since that's the central purpose of an encyclopaedia, I really can't understand the case for deletion.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  20:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (either in mainspace or move to portalspace) - this looks like a useful navigational tool.  LadyofShalott  Weave  20:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It "helpfully" links to controversial figures, creating WP:BLP violations using guilt-by-association, and it "helpfully" links to attack books written by the likes of Jerome Corsi. We already have categories and templates that accomplish this purpose perfectly adequately. Smells like a WP:COATRACK designed to get around the lack of support for putting some of this stuff in a "see also" section at Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * sofixit— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  07:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks S Marshall for your knowledge of fancy templates and stuff. I agree--that there's not enough characters populating this list, well, add the ones you think are missing. That perceived lack does not bear on the usefulness and notability of the article as a whole. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep quite helpful, I don't see how this meets the criteria for deletion now that it has been moved.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  20:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... it is useful, but it seems a little out of place navigation-wise. Maybe renaming it or moving it to a portal space (but leaving a redirect from main space) will do the trick.  The "coatrack" aspect can probably be kept in check by pruning anything too tangential or avoiding using the headings as accusations (e.g. listing Bill Ayers as an "associate").  However, I think that navigation pages are by definition not coatracks, they're just helpful tools.  They're the mounting plate, not the rack.   Wikidemon (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Egads what a clunky idea this was; the page simply looks like a dumping ground for a link to every possible Obama-related article, dubious or otherwise. Per Onorem, this seems to be precisely what WP:SELF seeks to avoid, and it sohuld be moved to a portal if it is to be kept at all. Tarc (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to a related WikiProject or Portal It is a disambiguation page, but not one that is properly sorted. The article name Barack Obama (disambiguation) is just incorrect, as that would only be appropriate if there was multiple Barack Obamas. The current title List of articles related to Barack Obama, reflects a list article, not a disambiguation page which its trying to be. Disambiguation pages also do not normally have a ton of templates, categories, etc. An all-inclusive list about Barack Obama would be better suited on a Barack Obama/U.S. Presidents Portal or WikiProject, and not in the article namespace where the link will virtually be an orphan. — Moe   ε  21:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note I have deleted the redirect left behind at Barack Obama (disambiguation) as there is no justification for its continued existence. There's no call for a disambiguation page since there is essentially only one Barack Obama, and there is no need for an article to exist that says it's a disambiguation page when it isn't.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Very useful. Part of the problem with the summary style is that it spawns a ridiculous amount of other articles, and they aren't particularly easy to find.  This helps. Arkon (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, the article appears to be orphaned so it's questionable what navigational purpose it serves, the typical user isn't going to type "List of articles related to Barack Obama" into the search bar. Where is it suggested that this page be linked from? Categories and navigational templates - which typically link from every page that they include - would seem to be a better solution. Guest9999 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's brand new so you are correct that it hasn't been linked to yet. But it seems like it would be a very helpful "see also" or even a regular wikilink if it's kept in article space. People seem to be having trouble finding topics in the main article where there's a lot of text to go through. And there are lots and lots of these articles and many of them aren't linked to in the main article, so it's expecting a lot of readers that they would be able to guess which ones exist and what they're called. The various Obama articles could also link to it. I'm hoping that if a prominent link is provided to this list of page, editors will have an easier time finding what they're looking for. This will also, hopefully, cut down on content being added to one article when it already exists in another article. I think this happens a lot because people don't know what other articles exist. This list of article also seems to be a very helpful layout that can include subheading and details not available in the categories (which aren't used by many readers) or the templates (which also aren't used by many of our readers and which are themselves cumbersome and numerous when it comes to Obama related subjects). ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The main article has a template that links to all the related daughter articles, and all the relevant articles are categorized. This is just an unnecessary page of linkcruft to reduce the number of steps between Barack Obama and Article that smears Obama, as far as I can tell, because it certainly doesn't seem to serve any other purpose. Do we have any evidence at all of this claim that "people are having trouble finding topics in the main article?" The main article is a summary style article with sections and "mainlinks" to all the important stuff. Who is going to type "List of articles related to Barack Obama" into the search box? Nobody. So the next phase in the master plan will be to, presumably, stick a link to this unnecessary page in all the listed articles. Am I right? To me, this looks like a BLP-violation-by-stealth. Also, I don't take kindly to the suggestion that I nominated this article for deletion as "improper behavior" - that's a bad faith assumption if ever there was one. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we have any evidence at all of this claim that "people are having trouble finding topics in the main article"? --Yes, see my vote.  Might also be best to not throw around accusation of bad faith in the same breath where you say This is just an unnecessary page of linkcruft to reduce the number of steps between Barack Obama and Article that smears Obama .   Arkon (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as unnecessary duplication of Category:Barack Obama. - Biruitorul Talk 00:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep at the new title - we need one of these for proper navigation. It's not redundant to Category: Barack Obama, because it's sorted and more carefully focused. It's not redundant to a navbox either, because it's broader and more expansive on the topics covered than any navbox can be. This is a benefit to the project. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you scroll down to the bottom of the "article", you will see templates that already provide grouped navigation of the same links. They render this "Article" completely redundant. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the list under discussion needs a copy of every navbox, but that's something to work out editorially. On the other hand, I specifically don't think that the existence of the navboxes make the list redundant, which is why I specifiaclly said, above, that I don't think that the existence of the navboxes makes the list redundant. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It really is an unnecessary duplication of Category:Barack Obama. - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 03:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it is not. As we've now noted that you disagree with my opinion, there seems little else to say here. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as a self-reference. This is the function for a category, not a list. Sometimes lists and categories can overlap, but defenitly not when there's a Wikipedia self-reference involved.  Them  From  Space  03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - unnecessary duplication: this is all covered by Category: Barack Obama and the Obama templates, and per Onorem's correct noting of Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid. Tvoz / talk 03:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: Category: Barack Obama—David Eppstein addressed this point in the third reply from the top, and has yet to be refuted.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  07:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So what if a category would lose the grouping into subtopics. Bottom line, it's still the same content - links to the different many Obama articles. - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 08:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The point really didn't have much merit, honestly. We simply do not do "List of..." articles that point to other articles, as this is precisely what WP:SELF is against. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Portalise From Portal "The idea of a portal is to help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas" (emphasis added). Portal space is where self referential, navigation like this belongs, I don't see why a Portal:Barack Obama shouldn't exist, that is effectively what the editors supporting this page are arguing for anyway. Guest9999 (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Change to Keep per the precedent set by all the articles in Category:Topical indexes. Personally I don't like them and I think the reasoning given here by myself and many other editors holds but you can't really deal with a whole class of article at a single AFD, a wider discussion is needed. Guest9999 (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Tired of seeing another pointless U.S. politics soap-drama which occurs on daily basis by "the Wiki-Obama cabal". The navigational function is already well covered by Barack Obama and Category:Barack Obama and I don't see why we have to keep the redundant list. The sections like "Education", and many entries of "Miscellaneous" unnecessarily inflate the list. Wikipedia is not an anti or a pro-Obama site, so do we need to know about his education up to his elementary school period? However, the nominator's grief over the title change is irony and looks like a tit-for-tat (recalling his unconventional division of "support" and "oppose" to an AfD). Anyway, if anyone argues that the two can not cover "everything about Obama", well, improve the template first.--Caspian blue 13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as the original prodder of the disambiguation page. The other page is a list that should be categorized and deleted. It is a self-reference list (meaning a list that can only be referenced by Wikipedia, which is contradictory) and if needed solely for navigation purposes, and that is not the purpose of a list (but it is a purpose of a category) and should be deleted likewise. Tavix | Talk  23:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CLN; a certain amount of redundancy between different navigation formats is acceptable, and this has important structural differences that set it apart from navigational footers, portals or categories. As kelapstick points out above, we have a whole class of very helpful pages of this type including Outline of anarchism, outline of Canada etc. As with portals, a topic deserves treatment of this sort iff it is discrete and contains enough articles to make the effort worthwhile, of which there is no doubt here. There are no neutrality, verifiability, copyright or conflict of interest issues, and it provides added guidance for readers, so it's an uncontroversial keep in my opinion.  Skomorokh  03:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It might end up with BLP issues though. Already there are links to articles of dubious relevancy (such as Bobby Rush). How long before we see links to articles like Kenya and birth certificate? This redundant article will just become another battleground. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an exceptionally poor reason to single out this article for deletion. Skomorokh  03:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you if it were the only reason, but many others have been articulated. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Several have suggested converting it to a portal, and I have seen no convincing argument why that should not be done.  LadyofShalott  Weave  03:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a list of articles arranged by subject. A portal is a different animal entirely: an intro about the topic, one or two showcased articles, a showcased image, DYKs and news, and perhaps a few WP:SELFREF links. An Obama portal would be a great idea in my opinion, but it is of little relevance to the tenability of this list. Skomorokh  03:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Articles arranged by subject" sounds awfully like reinventing subcategories to me. I like the idea of a portal, though. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that it's much more like a sorted category, but given the fact that redundancy is not an important objection and that this has the potential to be developed into an outline (e.g. Outline of transhumanism), I think it should be retained. Skomorokh  04:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment If this is kept or moved, please remember to link to it at Category:Barack Obama. --Raijinili (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Serves a useful and valuable function as a navigational tool. Esasus (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - I boldly moved the article to List of Wikipedia articles related to Barack Obama - since that's what it is. As it's in mainspace I thought the added clarity in the title might be helpful. Guest9999 (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the second time this article has been moved mid-AfD, which is really rather unhelpful. Please let the AfD process play out before bouncing it around somewhere else, if at all possible. The new title only serves to demonstrate how truly redundant and self-referencing this listcruft is. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with this. Arkon (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it's in main space I think it should be titled something like List of subjects related to Barack Obama. It's not about WIkipedia's articles, it's a page about the subjects. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete this, originally created in bad faith with the misleading claim it was a disambiguation page, still redundant at best to the categories, likely to become a coat-rack for POV pushers like CoM (the creator) to make claims for what is or is not "related" to Obama.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith, this was obviously not a bad faith creation. I've also left a note on your page about this. - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Bali ultimate, what an irony. What you wrote here is nothing but just ad hominen attack and a good example of bad-faith comments. Remind of WP:NPA.--Caspian blue 12:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One should only "assume" good faith until one has a body of evidence to determine whether faith would be well or ill-placed.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, what you just says go directly against WP:AGF, I strongly suggest you at least read the "nutshell" on that page. If you wish to contuine this please keep it on your's or mine talk page, which is where it belongs (and I tried to place it). Thankyou - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While not ideally phrased by Bali ultimate, the coatrack issue is of great concern. This will result in arguing about what is and what is not related to Obama. There is no question that this article was created because consensus was against a "see also" section at Barack Obama. Creating articles to get around consensus is basically forking, so it is not unreasonable to question the good faith of the creator with these facts in mind. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a strange argument to use. You would have to assume bad faith (or rather, claim bad faith) to say that they're creating articles to get around consensus in the first place. --Raijinili (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem at all strange when you read this thread. It was essentially discussing that there was not enough criticism at Barack Obama, despite a consensus agreeing otherwise. This article was conceived as a solution to that perceived problem, which makes it an intentional POV fork as I see it. How does one AGF under those circumstances? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, still strange. Instead of saying that they're forking, thus they're acting in bad faith, you can simplify your argument by saying that their bad faith is shown by <evidence of intention to go against consensus>. It's like saying "This person stabbed me as an act of revenge, and thus I think they have something against me." I'm saying that the claim of "revenge" is a claim in itself that they have something against the speaker. It's just nitpicking, though. --Raijinili (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep There are some 19 templates (most of them collapsed) at the very bottom of the Barack Obama article and dozens of categories jumbled together. So a better approach is clearly needed. This list article is an easy to navigate and well organized grouping of subjects related to Obama. It aids readers, many of whom don't link to categories or know how to use template links, in locating subjects they're looking for and provides access to our Obama coverage from one simple and straightforward wikilink or see also. It also has the benefit of reducing the amount of maintenance required on articles where content is added repeatedly because it isn't apparent that the material already exists elsewhere. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Question While I do think this is useful, I wonder what makes you think people don't understand how to follow links in templates?  LadyofShalott   Weave  17:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots and lots of people have commented that we don't cover certain issues when we do, so clearly they don't know where to look. Maybe "understand" was the wrong word, but I know lots of people don't use categories and templates properly. How many times are comments meant for AfD discussion posted on talk pages because article creators (not casual readers mind you) didn't see the link in the template? It's great that there are infoboxes templates and categories, and once you know how to use them properly they can be quite useful, but the casual reader is far more likely to use a wikilink or a see also link. Someone else told me how hard they found it to find articles they knew existed and were looking for, so that further expands my carefully controlled study sample size (a doubling actually) to two, because I also find it difficult to navigate these articles. And I would also like to point out again that the categories for that page and the templates are numerous and jumbled. This article page is a very clean and clear and easy to navigate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But would the same people who don't look through the templates click on a "List of..." link in a "See also" section?
 * It seems to me that there will always be people who complain about content missing if it's in a different article. There will always be those that use Ctrl+F to try to find the one issue they really care about in the article. (No, I'm not referring to anyone, since I've not really looked at these "missing content" complaints.) --Raijinili (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that CoM may be thinking this is a bigger problem than it really is. Templates are nothing but lists of links, and people who create articles do know that blue text means you can click on it and go somewhere else. Now, people may not bother to look at the links in the template, but that is a different issue.  LadyofShalott  Weave  19:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. CoM says that "the casual reader is far more likely to use a wikilink." That is precisely the point. Barack Obama is a featured article, and it is highly likely that all but a few relevant Obama articles are linked within the article, and the rest are swept up by the templates and category. Things that are less relevant or not relevant are either relegated to the templates, or rightly excluded. I can see the value of a portal, but this article is just a pointless, self-referencing list. I remain convinced that the true purpose of this list is to give greater weight to articles that are only tangentially-related to Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever your misgivings about the creator's intent, do you have specific NPOV concerns about the article as it is now? --Raijinili (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. For example, it links to an article about the Birther fringe theory, violating WP:BLP with guilt-by-association. But I nominated it for deletion because of it being a redundant rehash of templates and categories (the dab issue is obviously no longer the case), rather than NPOV concerns. This "article" has no intrinsic value whatsoever. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not guilt by association at all. The Ayers and Wright links are closer to guilt by association, though I would consider them more articles reporting guilt by association. The links are definitely about Obama, and they even appear in the category. If they're given any more visible prominence in the list than in the category, I say it's only because the list groups them together and is generally more organized. Other than that, if a list is much more likely to be viewed than a category, I'd say that's an argument for it not being useless.
 * I don't have any argument against redundancy, and that's not my concern here. --Raijinili (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for the technical reasons described in WP:SELF. I don't find the "let's make it easier for the casual reader" arguments persuasive; will we be pasting that whole list of articles into the lead of the Barack Obama article next, to make it easier still?  The catagories, templates and even the Search button at the side of your screen already suffice to cover the ease of navigation issues, in my opinion. The portal idea has some merit. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Side comment: Categories and templates, maybe, but I don't think "Search" is very easy to navigate. Well, categories (which are sorted in alphabetical order) are also quite intimidating and either unorganized (in a topical way) or spread across subpages (i.e. more pageloads). --Raijinili (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as per ChildofMidnight: this is an innovative approach and innovation shouldn't be deleted just because it's new.--Moloch09 (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:SELF, coatrack. Just not the style we use here.  Grsz 11  00:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - as above, per WP:SELF. Article was created to serve as WP:COATRACK. Newross (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Either Delete per various editors who observe that it really just duplicates the category, or perhaps Portalize per Guest9999. LotLE × talk  03:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to List of topics related to Barack Obama. The "Wikipedia" in the title and the lead is indeed a self-reference which should be removed, but otherwise the list a "neutral self-reference" which is explicitly allowed by policy, and we have a strong precedent for topical indexes. DHowell (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done the rename, because there is no reason to keep it at a title which so obviously violates guildelines. Also, I seem to recall a centralized discussion about moving topic outlines and topic indexes to Portal namespace, and the consensus was not to, but I'm having trouble finding that discussion. Anyone else recall this? DHowell (talk)
 * It doesn't matter. In the end, it's still a "List of..." article that points to other articles, which is against policy. Unless there's consensus to change the policy itself - which would have to take place in another location/discussion - the policy trumps any attempts at skirting the policy by renaming the page. - ℅ &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 05:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ASE, I have to disagree with you here. WP:SELF is a guideline, not policy, and the population of Category:Topical indexes would indicate that we're either making a distinction that I don't understand, or we tend to ignore that guideline. (I'm not sure which it is.) Lady  of  Shalott  05:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I see your point, and agree. But it's still nothing more than skirting.. for this page and all of those listed at Category:Topical indexes. What's the point in having categories if we're going to put all of the same content on a page and place it in a category too? - ℅ &#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 06:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Different people like to look at things in different ways? I might see something when I look at information presented one way, and notice something else when presented another way... The redundant department of redundancy isn't always a bad thing. ;-) Lady  of  Shalott  06:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved again? It isn't even a list of topics. Let's just move it to Coatrack of Barack Obama and be done with it. It's just another place for someone to hang birther/terrorist/muslim foo. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - (I have already voted above, so don't count this as another delete, for the record) One of the issues I have with this is, where and how would readers ever arrive at this article? I doubt many, if any, would ever think to one is going to type in the "List of topics..." name into a search box.  It shouldn't go into a "See also" section of any article, as that would effectively be an end-around method of getting the "controversies" secion linked to the main biographical bage for Obama.  Same with trying to link it from a navbar.  All it does is duplicate the categories, templates, and navboxes already present in many of the articles, and in a far more clunkier and unhelpful manner.  There is nothing innovative about an article that is a list of other articles. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete redundant to the category structure, inherent coatrack magnet Sceptre (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The policy for lists is that if there is a category, there can usually be a list also.   DGG (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A list of articles? Can you point out this policy, please? Tarc (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2009 (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.