Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concepts and names in the Epic of Gilgamesh


 * 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. I would be happy to userfy the page to anyone who wants to merge any of it elsewhere. J04n(talk page) 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Concepts and names in the Epic of Gilgamesh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Duplicate article/content, Fails WP:NOT. This article is essentially a dictionary or concordance of the Epic of Gilgamesh, definitions of everything the editor feels is important. Of course, it's entirely redundant with our existing article on the Epic of Gilgamesh, where the important "persons and things" are already explained, and with the existing articles we have on related subjects (which are also already linked from Epic of Gilgamesh). I have suggested that the editor take this to Wiktionary, the appropriate project for definitions and concordances (see Wiktionary:Concordances), but they're continuing here. Woodroar (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - this sets a new bar for failure —Мандичка YO 😜 05:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not everything i feel is important, it's based on words of which the meanings are not apparent. In any case the whole discussion seems redundant to me since firstly, and for example, List of people mentioned by name in the Quran has existed for number of years already and nobody has contested it's existence, but more importantly, there are already too many articles of "Lists of..." for me to spend time counting > List of lists of lists, really a significant number. Why ever would there be a hurry to discuss deletion though? since, Woodroar already having contacted me, that the article might be given time to develop in any case. What is the hurry? What actual harm is the article currently doing? It might serve to add something to understanding and scholarship, wikipedia as we all know is about learning, you both seem so eager to dismiss this for reasons of policy, but the reason wikipedia exists is to help people to learn, how is the article failing to do that? and how about other policies which might contradict WP:NOT < this policy isn't all encompassing, which the Lists of Lists of Lists page demonstrates. Whalestate (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * by the way what currently is the bar for failure? I'm learning gymnastics so I'd like to know Мандичка, you go tell me (next time we see each other at the gymnasium eh?) Whalestate (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't actually see explanations of < the important "persons and things" > in the article Epic of Gilgamesh I think you just presumed that these explanaitions existed Woodroar, without checking. In any case, the List of article offers an easy and concise way for people to look through  important "persons and things" (which you've so helpfully identified is the actual subject of the Lists article), instead of going through a some-what lengthy main article. There isn't anything more to say on the issue unless there is another additional relevant criticism from someone I'm sure, unless I've missed something about this discussion, if so then someone please enlighten me. yes, a new bar for failure, is that like, 2 metres or like .... what ? Whalestate (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It fails every possible criteria. I thought about creating an article called "List of things that fail harder than the article list of persons and things mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh" but then I realized it would be blank. —Мандичка YO 😜 06:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @Whalestate: that problems exist in other articles (also called "other stuff exists") is a reason to fix those other articles, though, not a reason to keep this one. Ultimately, WP:NOT is policy because there is one thing that Wikipedia is—an encyclopedia where we summarize what reliable sources say about subjects—and many things that Wikipedia is not. We don't do definitions (that's Wiktionary) or reproduce texts (Wikisource and Wikibooks) or quotes (Wikiquotes) or tutorials (Wikiversity) or media (Commons). (You can see our full list of projects at Wikimedia project.) We do have some lists, but they primarily serve to direct readers to articles, and there's even pushback against the fact that we have lists at all. (See WP:PROSE, for example.) What we don't have are duplicate articles where one is a list of important keywords. So we're discussing this rather than letting the article develop because this list is fundamentally outside the scope of what we're doing here. If you'd like, you're welcome to add content to Epic of Gilgamesh, to flesh out the plot or add more details about the more important people or places or things, keeping in mind important policies like WP:DUE. I hope you can understand why this is an issue. Woodroar (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @Woodroar We do have some lists... I included copy of the article (below) to demonstrate your error in thinking some and not a seemingly vast number (numerous, a great number, a forminable number).Your whole argument on the basis it is a list, as you can see, the number of main heading of list articles alone is really extensive. You think because there is currently a discussion about the validity of list articles (there's even pushback against the fact that we have lists at all), that it would make a difference to the number of list articles already? So, the discussion might result in every single list article deleted in order to follow policy, that's what your claiming ? What we don't have are duplicate articles where one is a list of important keywords - I doubt if it's possible you have surveyed the entire set of List articles or wikipedia to know for yourself if this is true, tell me if you have. Whalestate (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * An article should be considered on it's own merits, and not on the basis of policy, since, firstly policy is fluid to some degree, and secondly, wikipedia representing an encyclopedia using the internet allows for a looser interpretation of what might and might not be allowed under the definition such a thing. Wiki, meaning quick, would certainly indicate as a absolute surety, that to speed the access to knowledge is the defining feature of this encyclopedia, and so allowing some-one to see all the words detailed in the list would contribute to acceleration of learning. Plus, there are red-links in the list, which might indicate further investigation is needed (which is being hampered by this discussion slightly I might add)


 * In any case, I might in the future move the article from a title including list, if that is your problem, but let me reiterate, how could it be considering the evidence I've provided, irrespective of what-ever this or that policy you might consider proves it isn't encyclopediac, the reality of wikipedia is certainly something different to that which an absolute observance of policy should allow.Whalestate (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions > "Just unencyclopedic" which I think is the main thrust of your detailing various projects above, but really is easily summarized as fulfilling the WP:UNENCYC  policy inclusion I've given as evidence from  Arguments to avoid. Whalestate (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In-as-much as lists aren't really acceptable per policy, if the name were changed after a period of re-working then it might serve a purpose beyond that which is identified here as insufficient grounds for inclusion, since wikipedia is infact a work in progress. Your rigid observance of policy is stifling the development of the article though, wouldn't you say so? If it transpires that in attempting to develop the article under discussion, there results in something found to be unacceptable, then better at that time to discuss deletion, wouldn't you agree? Whalestate (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm still keeping to the evidence of the number of lists alone as sufficient grounds for retaining the article under discussion. Considering the proportion of relatively trivial and more obscure articles included below (please refer to the original) I would think something as important as the subject under discussion would warrant further attention, whether or not anyone has identified some grounds for deletion. The article might fail, at this time, but later move beyond the scope of failing. I don't know of reasons underlying policy as to why anyone would want to harry the progress of an article for reasons of policy, to sacrifice the possibility of greater good. Whalestate (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK: On its own merit, this article has none. I'm not sure what the point was of listing all those lists... do you mean that because they exist, all lists are therefore valid? Sounds like it's time to finally create List of people who have never been in my kitchen.  —Мандичка YO 😜 09:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Really? I didn't know you had such a popular and interesting kitchen! perhaps you might just make that article, well, how about starting now to compile the list, and tell me when you've finished? I'll be waiting eagerly for your reply Мандичка, no need to contact me before then, since you've so much work to be getting along with. Thanks! Whalestate (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @Whalestate: some decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, which is why all articles have a Talk page, and why we have a discussion-based deletion process such as this one. But we also have policies and guidelines determined primarily by WP:CONSENSUS (but sometimes handed down by fiat from the Wikimedia Foundation). WP:NOT has been a consensus-based policy since 2001 and it enjoys broad support across the project. (Consensus can change, of course, but you'll have to bring that to our Village Pump for policy, not here.) Our policies and guidelines allow any editor who finds an article about the perpetual motion machine some crank built in his garage or about how world leaders are actually lizards to mark that article for deletion and have the full support, by extension, of the project itself. So no, we don't let you write a dictionary because that's not what we're trying to do here.
 * And just a couple quick responses:
 * I haven't used the "just unencyclopedic" argument at all, and I would appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth.
 * The possibility that this list may become a full prose article is irrelevant. Pretend for a moment that every term gets defined, then gets context added to it, and all of a sudden we have another article on Epic of Gilgamesh. No, we don't do duplicate articles. That level of detail, if reliable sources support it, already belongs in Epic of Gilgamesh or the separate article about that term.
 * Yes, we have lists. I have never denied that. But lists fill a niche role, and—here's the important part—they don't overlap with existing articles. To use the top two examples from your list of lists: we have Lists of academic journals (which also contains its own sub-lists) but we don't also have a prose article about every academic journal for which we an article; and we have a Lists of important publications in science (again, with sub-lists) but we don't also have a prose article about every important publication in science. Do you see where I'm going? List of persons and things mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh currently violates WP:NOT and has significant overlap with Epic of Gilgamesh, but even with an astounding amount of work it could only ever become Persons and things mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh which is closer to our scope but would still fundamentally overlap with Epic of Gilgamesh.
 * So, to make a long story short (too late!), if you're interested in the Epic of Gilgamesh, your efforts would be appreciated at Epic of Gilgamesh, not a list that not only violates policies but duplicates our efforts. Again, I hope this helps. Woodroar (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @Woodroar Okay, I appreciate your candour, and I see your argument has support, but it has a flaw also, this being as I see it, that there is an overlap, but I have mentioned already the presence of red links...so the chance of new development of articles not covered in the main article. Whalestate (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, yes and no. If you (or anyone) starts a new article on, say, The Revered Cow, then we may link to it from Epic of Gilgamesh. (It's not like Epic of Gilgamesh or any other article is truly complete, after all.) But here's the thing: our content is determined almost exclusively by reliable, third-party published sources (WP:V). The threshold for notability—that is, whether a subject warrants an article at all—is that multiple reliable sources must have written about that subject "directly and in detail" (WP:N) and that the subject isn't excluded by WP:NOT. But even within articles, we write in proportion to what reliable sources say (WP:DUE). So let's use the Revered Cow as an example. If multiple reliable sources—in this case, reputable scholars—have written about the Revered Cow, then it's probably appropriate for someone to start that article. When we look at sources, full-length books about the Revered Cow would be great, but chapters in books or articles in journals would be good as well. If these multiple sources exist, then red-linking to The Revered Cow is probably okay because the subject is notable, it's just that nobody has gotten around to creating the article yet. (It used to be more like this years ago, but not so much anymore. Most notable subjects already have an article, even if it's a WP:STUB.) If there aren't multiple sources, though, we shouldn't be red-linking because the subject isn't notable. And sometimes so few sources mention a term that Wikipedia shouldn't, either. If we were to pick 100 sources about the Epic of Gilgamesh and they all mentioned the Revered Cow in passing, then we should probably mention it in Epic of Gilgamesh. If the majority of those 100 sources went into some detail on the Revered Cow, say a few sentences or maybe a paragraph or two, then we should follow suit. But if only a handful of those sources mention the Revered Cow at all, then the subject isn't important enough to cover, even as a passing mention. What it comes down to is that we're like good journalists: we always follow the sources, summarizing what they say in proportion to what they say. Woodroar (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's true. My kitchen is amazing. I'll get to that article after I finish my pièce de résistance, List of yellow things in Memphis, Texas. —Мандичка YO 😜 03:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

General reference
 * Lists of academic journals
 * Lists of important publications in science

Culture and the arts

Literature
 * Lists of books
 * Lists of 100 best books
 * Lists of The New York Times Fiction Best Sellers
 * Lists of The New York Times Non-Fiction Best Sellers
 * Publishers Weekly lists of bestselling novels in the United States
 * Lists of bookstores
 * Lists of LGBT figures in fiction and myth
 * Lists of Middle-earth articles
 * Lists of New Testament minuscules
 * Lists of writers
 * Lists of American writers
 * Lists of Slovak authors

Art and the arts

Performing arts
 * Lists of ABC shows
 * Lists of actors
 * Lists of actors by television series
 * Lists of pornographic actors
 * Lists of albums
 * Lists of UK Compilation Chart number-one albums
 * Lists of anime
 * Lists of Battlestar Galactica locations
 * Lists of Canadian game shows
 * Lists of Canadian television series
 * Lists of characters in a fictional work
 * Lists of advertising characters
 * Lists of characters from The Office
 * Lists of characters in the Suikoden series
 * Lists of Coronation Street characters
 * Lists of CSI characters
 * Lists of EastEnders characters
 * Lists of Emmerdale characters
 * Lists of fictional Presidents of the United States
 * Lists of Hollyoaks characters
 * Lists of Stargate characters
 * Lists of "The Walking Dead" characters
 * Lists of Christmas number one singles
 * Lists of composers
 * Chronological lists of classical composers
 * Chronological lists of classical composers by nationality
 * Lists of films
 * List of book-based war films
 * Lists of box office number-one films
 * List of fiction works made into feature films
 * List of film remakes
 * Lists of film series
 * List of film spin-offs
 * Lists of films by country
 * Lists of American films
 * Lists of Argentine films
 * List of Argentine films of the 1930s
 * List of Argentine films of the 1940s
 * List of Argentine films of the 1950s
 * List of Argentine films of the 1960s
 * List of Argentine films of the 1970s
 * List of Argentine films of the 1980s
 * List of Argentine films of the 1990s
 * List of Argentine films of the 2000s
 * List of Argentine films of the 2010s
 * Lists of Australian films
 * List of Australian films of the 1970s
 * List of Australian films of the 1980s
 * List of Australian films of the 1990s
 * Lists of Austrian films
 * Lists of Azerbaijani films
 * List of Belgian films
 * Lists of Brazilian films
 * List of Brazilian films of the 1930s
 * List of Brazilian films of the 1980s
 * List of Brazilian films of the 2000s
 * List of Brazilian films of the 2010s
 * List of British films
 * List of Bulgarian films
 * List of Cambodian films
 * List of Cambodian films of the 2000s
 * List of Chinese films
 * List of Chinese films of the 1990s
 * List of Chinese films of the 2000s
 * List of Chinese films of the 2010s
 * List of Czech films
 * Lists of Czechoslovakian films
 * List of Danish films
 * Lists of Dutch films
 * Lists of Egyptian films
 * List of Finnish films
 * Lists of French films
 * List of Georgian films
 * Lists of German films
 * List of Hong Kong films
 * List of Hong Kong films of the 1950s
 * List of Hong Kong films of the 1960s
 * List of Hong Kong films of the 1970s
 * List of Hong Kong films of the 1980s
 * List of Hong Kong films of the 1990s
 * List of Hong Kong films of the 2000s
 * List of Hong Kong films of the 2010s
 * List of Hungarian films
 * Lists of Indian Films
 * List of Assamese films
 * List of Bengali films
 * List of Bollywood films
 * List of Bollywood films of the 1970s
 * Lists of Kannada films
 * List of Kannada films of the 1980s
 * List of Kannada films of the 1990s
 * List of Kannada films of the 2000s
 * List of Kannada films of the 2010s
 * List of Malayalam films
 * List of Malayalam films of the 1960s
 * List of Malayalam films of the 1970s
 * List of Malayalam films of the 1980s
 * List of Malayalam films of the 1990s
 * List of Malayalam films of the 2000s
 * List of Malayalam films of the 2010s
 * List of Indian Punjabi films
 * List of Tamil-language films
 * List of Tamil films of the 1940s
 * List of Tamil films of the 1990s
 * List of Tamil films of the 2000s
 * List of Tamil films of the 2010s
 * List of Telugu-language films
 * List of Telugu films of the 2000s
 * List of Telugu films of the 2010s
 * List of Iranian films
 * List of Israeli films
 * List of Israeli films before 1960
 * List of Israeli films of the 1960s
 * List of Israeli films of the 1970s
 * List of Israeli films of the 1980s
 * List of Israeli films of the 1990s
 * List of Israeli films of the 2000s
 * List of Israeli films of the 2010s
 * List of Italian films
 * List of Japanese films
 * List of Japanese films of the 1950s
 * List of Japanese films of the 1960s
 * List of Japanese films of the 1970s
 * List of Japanese films of the 1980s
 * List of Japanese films of the 1990s
 * List of Japanese films of the 2000s
 * List of Japanese films of the 2010s
 * Lists of Korean films
 * Lists of South Korean films
 * List of Mexican films
 * List of Mexican films of the 1940s
 * List of Mexican films of the 1950s
 * List of Mexican films of the 1960s
 * List of Mexican films of the 1970s
 * List of Mexican films of the 1980s
 * List of Mexican films of the 2000s
 * List of Mexican films of the 2010s
 * List of Norwegian films
 * Lists of Pakistani films
 * List of Pakistani films of the 1950s
 * List of Pakistani films of the 1960s
 * List of Pakistani films of the 1970s
 * List of Pakistani films of the 1980s
 * List of Pakistani films of the 1990s
 * List of Pakistani films of the 2000s
 * List of Pakistani films of the 2010s
 * List of Philippine films
 * List of Polish films
 * List of Portuguese films
 * List of Portuguese films of the 2000s
 * List of Portuguese films of the 2010s
 * Lists of Singaporean films
 * List of Singaporean films of the 2010s
 * List of Soviet films
 * List of Soviet films of the 1930s
 * List of Soviet films of the 1940s
 * List of Soviet films of the 1950s
 * List of Soviet films of the 1960s
 * List of Soviet films of the 1970s
 * List of Spanish films
 * List of Spanish films of the 1950s
 * List of Spanish films of the 1960s
 * List of Spanish films of the 1970s
 * List of Spanish films of the 1980s
 * List of Spanish films of the 1990s
 * List of Spanish films of the 2000s
 * List of Spanish films of the 2010s
 * List of Sri Lankan films
 * List of Swedish films
 * List of Turkish films
 * List of Yugoslav films
 * List of films by genre
 * List of action films
 * List of adventure films
 * List of animated feature films
 * List of animated feature films of the 1970s
 * List of animated feature films of the 1980s
 * List of animated feature films of the 1990s
 * List of animated feature films of the 2000s
 * List of animated feature films of the 2010s
 * List of avant-garde films
 * Lists of Christmas films
 * Lists of comedy films
 * List of crime films
 * List of crime films of the 1990s
 * List of crime films of the 2000s
 * List of erotic films
 * List of fantasy films
 * List of horror films
 * List of horror films of the 1960s
 * List of horror films of the 1970s
 * List of horror films of the 1980s
 * List of horror films of the 1990s
 * List of horror films of the 2000s
 * List of horror films of the 2010s
 * List of science fiction films
 * List of thriller films
 * List of Western films
 * Lists of films by studio
 * 20th Century Fox films
 * Lists of films released by Disney
 * Lists of highest-grossing films
 * Lists of Geordie song-related topics
 * Lists of Gladiators events
 * Lists of Hispanic Academy Award winners and nominees by country
 * Lists of music by theme
 * Lists of music inspired by literature
 * Lists of musicals
 * Lists of musicians
 * Lists of A&M Records artists
 * Lists of blues musicians by genre
 * Lists of pianists
 * Lists of violinists
 * Lists of operas
 * Lists of The Simpsons publications
 * Lists of singers
 * Lists of songs
 * Lists of Star Trek planets
 * Lists of Star Trek ships
 * Lists of Stargate topics
 * Lists of television channels
 * Lists of television episodes
 * Lists of American television episodes with LGBT themes
 * Lists of CSI episodes
 * Lists of Knight Rider episodes
 * Lists of Melrose Place episodes
 * Lists of Stargate episodes
 * Lists of The Office episodes
 * Lists of V episodes
 * Lists of Witchblade episodes
 * Lists of television programs
 * Lists of television programs with LGBT characters
 * Lists of theatres
 * Lists of This American Life episodes

Visual arts
 * Lists of comics
 * Lists of manga

Entertainment and recreation
 * Lists of festivals

Games
 * Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters
 * Lists of Game Boy games
 * Lists of games
 * Lists of role-playing games
 * Lists of video games
 * Lists of Nintendo games
 * Lists of Sega games
 * Lists of Nintendo characters

Sports
 * Lists of American football players
 * Lists of association football players
 * Lists of Australian rules football leagues
 * Lists of College Football Hall of Fame inductees
 * Lists of curling clubs
 * Lists of England international footballers
 * Lists of golfers
 * Lists of international rugby football teams
 * Lists of Maccabiah Games medalists
 * Lists of Michigan Wolverines football statistical leaders
 * Lists of National Football League team seasons
 * Lists of NRL records
 * Lists of nicknames in association football
 * Lists of Olympic medalists
 * Lists of player transfers
 * Lists of Danish football transfers 2008–09
 * Lists of Danish football transfers 2009–10
 * Lists of Italian football transfers 2007–08
 * Lists of Paralympic medalists
 * Lists of sports venues
 * Lists of baseball parks
 * Lists of sportspeople
 * Lists of sportspeople who died during their careers
 * List of Sri Lanka cricket lists
 * Lists of Swedish Swimming Championships champions
 * Status lists of players in professional sports
 * Lists of tennis players
 * Lists of tennis records and statistics
 * Lists of wrestlers

Food and drink
 * Lists of beverages
 * Lists of prepared foods
 * Lists of restaurants

Mass media
 * Lists of magazines
 * Lists of newspapers
 * Lists of Dominican newspapers
 * Lists of newspapers in Korea
 * Lists of radio stations
 * Lists of television stations in North America

Geography and places

Natural geographical features
 * Lists of extreme points
 * Lists of highest points
 * Lists of hills in the British Isles
 * Lists of islands of the Americas
 * Lists of islands of the European Union
 * Lists of lakes
 * List of mountain lists
 * Lists of mountains
 * Lists of rivers
 * Lists of volcanoes
 * Lists of waterways

Countries and regions
 * Ranked lists of Chilean regions
 * Lists of counties
 * Lists of counties in the United States
 * Lists of Scottish counties by population
 * Lists of countries and territories
 * Lists of African Union members
 * Lists of former Soviet Republics
 * Lists by country
 * Lists of country-related topics
 * Lists of Zambia-related topics
 * Lists of non-sovereign nations
 * Lists of Oregon-related topics
 * Lists of Registered Historic Places in Clinton County
 * Lists of sovereign states and dependent territories
 * Lists of sovereign states by year
 * Lists of Spanish provinces
 * Lists of Taiwanese counties and cities
 * Lists of the Arab League
 * Lists of time zones
 * Lists of townlands of County Cork

Places
 * Lists of hotels
 * Lists of landmarks
 * Lists of ports
 * Lists of tourist attractions
 * Lists of tourist attractions in England
 * Wonders of the World

Settlements
 * Lists of capitals
 * Lists of cities
 * Lists of cities by country
 * Lists of communes of France
 * Lists of ghost towns in Canada
 * Lists of populated places in the United States
 * Lists of places in Kansas
 * Lists of Los Angeles topics
 * Lists of New York City Landmarks
 * Lists of New York City topics
 * Lists of Omaha topics
 * Lists of San Francisco topics
 * Lists of U.S. cities with large ethnic identity populations
 * Lists of U.S. cities with non-white majority populations
 * Lists of municipalities
 * Lists of neighborhoods by city
 * Lists of places
 * Lists of places by eponym
 * Lists of towns
 * Lists of towns in Ireland
 * Lists of twin towns and sister cities
 * Lists of villages in Norway
 * Lists of U.S. state topics
 * Lists of UK locations with large ethnic minority populations

Mathematics and logic
 * Lists of integrals
 * Lists of mathematics topics
 * Lists of statistics topics
 * Lists of unsolved problems in mathematics

Natural and physical sciences

Biology


 * Lists of animals
 * Lists of amphibians by region
 * Lists of birds by region
 * Lists of cats
 * Lists of dogs
 * Lists of elephants
 * Lists of extinct animals
 * Lists of extinct animals of the British Isles
 * Lists of horses
 * Lists of insects of Great Britain
 * Lists of Korean birds
 * Lists of mammals by region
 * Lists of reptiles by region
 * Lists of reptiles of the United States
 * Lists of aquarium life
 * Lists of biologists by author abbreviation
 * Lists of cultivars
 * Lists of diseases
 * Lists of plant diseases
 * Lists of ecoregions
 * Lists of ecoregions by country
 * Lists of ecoregions in the United States
 * Lists of environmental publications
 * Lists of environmental topics
 * Lists of fictional lifeforms
 * Lists of fictional animals
 * Lists of dragons
 * Lists of vampires
 * Lists of fictional extraterrestrials
 * Lists of fictional hybrids
 * Lists of fictional species
 * Lists of fictional humanoid species
 * Lists of giants
 * Lists of IUCN Red List species
 * Lists of IUCN Red List Critically Endangered species
 * Lists of IUCN Red List data deficient species
 * Lists of IUCN Red List endangered species
 * Lists of IUCN Red List near threatened species
 * Lists of IUCN Red List vulnerable species
 * Lists of species
 * Lists of invasive species
 * Lists of trees

Physical sciences
 * Lists of astronomical objects
 * Lists of comets
 * Lists of galaxies
 * Lists of geological features of the Solar System
 * Lists of nebulae
 * Lists of small Solar System bodies
 * Lists of stars
 * Lists of stars by constellation
 * Carbon number
 * Lists of earthquakes
 * Isotope lists
 * Isotope lists, 0-24
 * Isotope lists, 25-48
 * Isotope lists, 49-72
 * Isotope lists, 73-96
 * Isotope lists, 97+
 * List of metalloid lists
 * Meteorological lists
 * Lists of Category 5 hurricanes
 * Lists of tropical cyclone names
 * Lists of United States tornadoes in 2009
 * Lists of solar eclipses
 * Lists of planets

People


 * Lists of bisexual people
 * Lists of black people
 * Lists of celebrities
 * Lists of Celts
 * Lists of centenarians
 * Lists of ethnic groups
 * Lists of heroes
 * Lists of models
 * Lists of female models
 * Lists of people
 * Lists of people by cause of death
 * Lists of people executed in Texas
 * Lists of people by nationality
 * Lists of African Americans
 * Lists of people by African Union state
 * Lists of Americans
 * Lists of Armenians
 * Lists of Australians
 * Lists of British people by ethnic or national origin
 * Lists of Britons
 * Lists of Dominicans
 * Lists of Indigenous Australians
 * Lists of Israeli artists
 * Lists of Macedonians
 * Lists of New Zealanders
 * Lists of people by occupation
 * Lists of engineers
 * Lists of mathematicians
 * Lists of Muslim scientists and scholars
 * Lists of painters
 * Lists of philosophers
 * Lists of scientists
 * Lists of people from Camden
 * Lists of people from India by state
 * Lists of people from Quebec by region
 * Lists of people on the cover of Time magazine
 * Special Honours Lists (Australia)
 * Lists of women

Religion and belief systems
 * Lists of Bible stories
 * Lists of cathedrals
 * Lists of cathedrals in the United Kingdom
 * Lists of Catholicoi
 * Lists of Commissioners' churches in southern England, the Midlands and Wales
 * Lists of deities
 * Lists of demons
 * Lists of mosques
 * Lists of patriarchs
 * Lists of patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops
 * Lists of people by belief
 * Lists of atheists
 * Lists of Christians
 * Lists of Christian Scientists
 * Lists of Roman Catholics
 * Lists of Jews
 * Lists of Muslims

Society and social sciences

Linguistics
 * Lists of abbreviations
 * Lists of dictionaries
 * Lists of English words
 * Lists of collective nouns
 * Lists of English loanwords by country or language of origin
 * Lists of English words of Celtic origin
 * Lists of English words of Scottish origin
 * Lists of words having different meanings in American and British English
 * Lists of etymologies
 * Lists of North American place name etymologies
 * Lists of U.S. county name etymologies
 * Lists of ISO 639 codes
 * Lists of languages
 * Lists of endangered languages
 * Lists of names
 * Lists of East Asian surnames
 * Lists of Korean names
 * Lists of most common surnames
 * Lists of nicknames
 * Lists of things named after places
 * Lists of pejorative terms for people
 * Word lists by frequency

Social institutions

Infrastructure
 * Lists of bus routes in New York City
 * Lists of canals
 * Lists of cemeteries
 * Lists of crossings of the East River
 * Lists of crossings of the Hudson River
 * Lists of crossings of the Mississippi River
 * Lists of mines
 * Lists of copper mines in the United States
 * Lists of New Jersey Transit bus routes
 * Lists of named passenger trains
 * Lists of rail accidents
 * Lists of rapid transit systems
 * Lists of roads in the United Kingdom
 * Lists of ships

Economy and business
 * Lists of banks
 * Lists of brands
 * Lists of companies
 * Lists of corporate assets
 * Lists of corporate headquarters by city
 * Lists of countries by GDP
 * Lists of Latin American countries by GDP
 * Lists of countries by GDP per capita
 * Lists of countries by GNI per capita
 * Lists of countries by debt
 * Lists of most expensive items
 * List of public corporations by market capitalization

Education
 * Lists of educational institutions in Pakistan
 * Lists of institutions of higher education by endowment
 * Lists of law schools
 * Lists of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people
 * Lists of school districts in the United States
 * Lists of schools in Australia
 * Lists of schools in New Zealand
 * Lists of universities and colleges
 * Lists of universities and colleges by country
 * Lists of university leaders

Government and politics
 * Lists of active separatist movements
 * Lists of diplomatic missions
 * Lists of governments of Lithuania
 * Historical lists of Privy Counsellors
 * Lists of legislation
 * Lists of Statutes of New Zealand
 * Lists of lord lieutenancies
 * Lists of newspaper endorsements in United States presidential elections
 * Lists of office-holders
 * Lists of ancient kings
 * Lists of Canadian senators
 * Lists of county governors of Norway
 * Lists of current members of the Privy Council
 * Lists of custodes rotulorum
 * Lists of Danzig officials
 * Lists of emperors
 * Lists of female state governors
 * Lists of Governors of Punjab
 * Lists of Japanese Governors-General
 * Lists of mayors by country
 * Lists of monarchs in the British Isles
 * Lists of national institutions and symbols
 * Lists of Polish politicians
 * Lists of presidents
 * Lists of rulers of Djibouti
 * Lists of rulers of Ethiopia
 * Lists of rulers of Germany
 * Lists of rulers of Ghana
 * Lists of rulers of Greece
 * Lists of rulers of India
 * Lists of rulers of Ireland
 * Lists of rulers of Italy
 * Lists of rulers of Kenya
 * Lists of rulers of Madagascar
 * Lists of rulers of Spain
 * Lists of state leaders
 * Lists of state leaders by year
 * Political lists
 * List of United States congressional lists
 * Lists of United States state insignia
 * Lists of Washington initiatives

Law
 * Lists of case law
 * Former FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives
 * Lists of habeas petitions filed on behalf of War on Terror detainees
 * Lists of landmark court decisions
 * Lists of Pakistan Supreme Court cases
 * Lists of United States Supreme Court cases
 * Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
 * Lists of Supreme Court Justices

War
 * Lists of allied military operations of the Vietnam War
 * Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism
 * Lists of Victoria Cross recipients
 * Lists of wars
 * Lists of World War I topics
 * Lists of World War II topics
 * Lists of World War II prisoner-of-war camps

Technology and applied science

Medicine


 * Lists of hospitals
 * Lists of hospitals in Africa
 * Lists of hospitals in Asia
 * Lists of hospitals in Europe
 * Lists of hospitals in North America
 * Lists of hospitals in Oceania
 * Lists of hospitals in South America

Military
 * Lists of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft
 * Lists of armoured fighting vehicles
 * Lists of Empire ships
 * Lists of gun cartridges
 * Lists of military aircraft by nation
 * Lists of Bulgarian military aircraft
 * Lists of military installations
 * Lists of ships of the Turkish Navy
 * Lists of swords
 * Lists of weapons

Technology
 * Lists of astronauts


 * Lists of computers
 * Lists of microcomputers
 * Lists of country codes
 * Lists of Crayola colors
 * Lists of display resolutions
 * Lists of North American area codes
 * Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents
 * Lists of programming languages
 * Lists about renewable energy
 * Lists of offshore wind farms by country
 * Lists of offshore wind farms by water area
 * Lists of reservoirs and dams
 * Lists of wind farms by country
 * Lists of windmills in Yorkshire
 * Lists of software
 * Lists of websites
 * Lists of works by Sharpe, Paley and Austin
 * Lists of Google Doodles

Miscellaneous


 * Lists about skepticism
 * Lists of disasters
 * Lists of flags
 * Lists of hoards
 * Lists of holidays
 * List of lists of lists
 * Lists of national symbols
 * Lists of National Treasures of Japan
 * Lists of occupations
 * Lists of pairs
 * Phone hacking scandal reference lists
 * Lists of resignations
 * Lists of tenants in the World Trade Center (1966–2001)
 * Lists of World Heritage Sites
 * Lists of years by topic


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 18.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 00:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 18.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 00:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 18.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 01:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I don't entirely think that it's inappropriate to bring up other list articles. While no, the existence of another list does not mean that everything merits a list, there is merit in having a page that lists the various people mentioned in the EoG. There are other articles about religious texts that list the people mentioned in the work like List of Book of Mormon people, List of characters and names mentioned in the Quran, and List of biblical names starting with A. (I'm aware that EoG was originally handed down orally, but for argument's sake I'm classifying it as a "text" for the sake of brevity.) However if this is to remain as a list page it should be a list page that only covers the people mentioned in the work and it could be re-worked to be something like List of people and names mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh. The idea of themes or concepts in a religious text has the potential to be a very, very weighty topic and could easily overwhelm a page, which is why it should not be combined with a list of people. It can also be fairly esoteric and can rely very heavily on personal interpretation, which is why it's typically encouraged for people to write sections about the concepts or themes that summarize the information as opposed to creating lists. Basically, themes and concepts can be theoretically infinite (or at least too numerous to include on a page) while places and people are finite. I can see the merit in having a page similar to this, although I do think that this needs to be refined to fall more in line with the list pages for people in the Bible, Quran, or Book of Mormon. I'm sure that you could probably find someone at one of the varied WikiProjects listed on the EoG talk page that would be willing to help with this task. I'm not opposed to helping, although I am somewhat busy due to schoolwork. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, the EoG is an extremely important work that has been covered in multiple formats: as work of literature, as a historical work, and as something that is sometimes referred to as a religious text. (Well, sort of. It's more something along the lines of The Illiad and the Odyssey, but it's used pretty heavily to teach about ancient religion. And we do have a page of Homeric characters.) This means that the characters have been covered in reliable sources to the point where many of them have articles on Wikipedia. It makes sense to have a list page for these apart from the main page for the poem itself just as much as it makes sense to have lists for characters/people from other works, both religious and literary. I'm not necessarily arguing for the inclusion of this article (unless it gets cleaned up, upon which point it'd have to be renamed) but for inclusion of a list article along the lines I've mentioned above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to caution people about being a little too BITE-y. Some of the comments here are a little too unnecessarily harsh. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Well, it isn't a concordance, is it? Nor a dictionary. Wiktionary is about words whereas Wikipedia is about topics. Here we have an index of topics. Some of the arguments above are rather crass and others are very lengthy so I'm glad Tokyogirl turned up to save us from complete embarrassment. Thincat (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually from my perspective, I worked through the criticisms of User:Woodroar (and Мандичка also was a use of sorts, any input is better than none at all) to try to make a more acceptable article. At the time of the previous discussion, the article's state was more like just a straight list. The process of involvement in constructive criticism (or any criticism) served as impetus to improve the article, instead of editing becoming more lackadaisical. I have had to take a rest from editing for a while (a few days) so haven't worked on the article for a little period, and I might need to take a rest again sometime, though I'll make this article the priority while I have the energy to work on it, since it's under discussion, to find ways to improve upon it if there are any possible. Whalestate (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't a list, it's an attempt at an article about the interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh. The place for material on the interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh is, strangely enough, Epic of Gilgamesh. If it turns out that "concepts and names" is an important enough subtopic of the Epic of Gilgamesh, then a sub-article can be branched out from the main article. As it is, though, this article is a poorly written hodgepodge, with no indication that it covers a distinct and notable topic in the scholarship on the Gilgamesh epic. In fact, it's very difficult to tell what this article is supposed to be about: the prose reads like a meandering undergraduate essay with no thesis or argumentative thread, and "concepts and names" is nebulous and sweeping. It seems as if User:Whalestate has cobbled together a bunch of sources to advance his own, idiosyncratic take on the epic--that's original research by synthesis, a violation of Wikipedia policy. In addition, Whalestate has used poor sources to create his essay--online lecture notes from a course at the American University of Beirut, lecture notes for a course at Yale for teachers in New Haven public schools, who will presumably teach excerpts of the epic in world literature classes at the high school level, and a print-on-demand translation by someone who has no apparent expertise in ancient Mesopotamia. Oh, and SparkNotes. Whatever is useful in this article could easily be put in Epic of Gilgamesh--except I don't think there is anything useful in this article that isn't already in the article on the epic. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete -- merging any useful content into Epic of Gilgamesh. Paul August &#9742; 00:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * well I'm thinking it a rather shallow evaluation by Akhilleus.

His first statement ''an attempt at an article about the interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh. The place for material on the interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh is, strangely enough, Epic of Gilgamesh. If it turns out that "concepts and names" is an important enough subtopic of the Epic of Gilgamesh, then a sub-article can be branched out from the main article. indicates a reason to keep the article, should that If it turns out that "concepts and names" is an important enough subtopic''. An article about the interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh is of course necessary since the main article doesn't contain any interpretation, or explanation or attempt at providing insight into what is is often regarded as the first great work of literature.

Akhilleus last comment:

"...except I don't think there is anything useful in this article that isn't already in the article on the epic."

shows his lack of concern and conscientiousness in this issue, since, as I've already stated, there isn't any effort, what-so-ever to include interpretation in the main article, if he had looked for himself he would have seen this.

"As it is, though, this article is a poorly written hodgepodge, with no indication that it covers a distinct and notable topic in the scholarship on the Gilgamesh epic. In fact, it's very difficult to tell what this article is supposed to be about: the prose reads like a meandering undergraduate essay with no thesis or argumentative thread, and "concepts and names" is nebulous and sweeping."

Is simply because the article is at a beginning stage, articles go through different levels of quality, that it is poorly written... other articles on wikipedia are classified poorly written, but retained, if they are valuable, in order to be improved. What grounds are there for deletion that couldn't be ignored if there were a concerted effort to improve the article? change the article title? All that is necessary is to identify whether the article is necessary, which it is, for the reasons I've indicated above (that there is nowhere any writing in wikipedia to assist the reader in understanding the Epic other than the article under debate here).

he has ignored the fact that the title might be changed to provide more meaning to the article

how many articles on wikipedia have begun which don't require improvement? Little more than a cursory glance around the most important articles on wikipedia would obviously show there isn't one article than began in a finished state, or something that needed little change.

It is easy for him to say I'm advancing my own agenda (but who in doesn't to some degree in any case? how many stereotypically altruistic monks and nuns participate in editing?) when he hasn't made any effort to contribute to the article, and so leaves me alone as the only contributor. So hastely he rushes in to condemn the article, without allowing any time for it to develop. If it turns out that "concepts and names" is an important enough subtopic of the Epic of Gilgamesh, then a sub-article can be branched out from the main article. shows he at least considers there might be some reason for the article to exist, but still thinks deletion is necessary... how so? Better to retain the article and so later merge the material into Epic of Gilgamesh if necessary, on the grounds he has indicated. It is obvious the article is necessary, or something like it, for now at least, since, how many people are familiar with the Epic and could find meaning within it without recourse to some explanation and insight from somewhere ? the article Epic of Gilgamesh doesn't contain any help in finding meaning for readers at all and is more of a structural analysis and summary of the work.

Also his indicating the criticism poor sources of these sources :

online lecture notes from a course at the American University of Beirut

- and the criticism is...? I don't see any reason to think this is a poor source. Akhilleus hasn't actually provided a criticism of the quality of this source,he stated it is poor, but how?

lecture notes for a course at Yale for teachers in New Haven public schools who will presumably teach excerpts of the epic in world literature classes at the high school level

- well, his criticism has no grounds for consideration because how does the intended use of the source disqualify the value of it?It doesn't disqualify it is the answer. The source must be intelligently written, for adult readers, so his criticism fails on this source (and it's Yale-Haven not Yale by the way).

- Oh, and SparkNotes

Sounds like someone scoffing, well, i don't concur that one editors (namely Akhilleus) personal opinion on the value of a source is sufficient grounds for devaluing the source. That Sparknotes was created by Harvard graduates at least indicates a degree of credibility, together with the fact that there is an actual wikipedia article on the site, which in itself shows they are significant enough to be included within wikipedia, but not as a source? why?

and finally my use of the print-on-demand translation source, amounts to one term < Ut-Napishtim >, which is the entire use of that source, which doesn't really indicate a crucial factor in the existence of the article, really, since that one word could just be removed.

His effort to criticise the article seem a petty effort to pick and shallowly locate any seemingly weak elements to the article, which altogether instead amounts to something which isn't constructive criticism but is half-hearted and seemingly lazily thought out. Whalestate (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * as a response to Delete -- merging any useful content into Epic of Gilgamesh from Paul August

this might very likely be a valid outcome for the article, but at this stage how is it possible to know whether it would be better to retain the article and have a briefer section in the Epic of Gilgamesh with this as the main article? until someone has made an effort to survey the existing sources to see the extent to which material exists on the subject of interpretation, or concepts, themes and ideas or the Epic, it would be too soon to pass judgement that deletion is the obvious and necessary thing to happen. Why exactly is deletion so necessary on the grounds to merge the material? since a new heading and section might be made to highlight the existence of this article in the Epic' article. This article was created on the 16th of May and only myself having worked on improving and adding to the article, I suggest giving more time to locate sources, and after an agreed time to then suggest a merge (of which there is a template for merging, and merging is a separate issue I feel, not indicating the necessity of deletion). If merge is the reason (and Paul August hasn't himself provided any reason for deletion, other than merging, then a discussion should be instigated on a merge proposal, without deletion, if merging is the only reason he could think of). Whalestate (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem with using lecture notes ought to be obvious to anyone who understands how to do research on academic topics. You look for high quality sources, that is, those written by experts and published by reputable journals or presses. This ensures that the sources have undergone critical scrutiny, ideally through peer review—this way, you know not only that the material has written by an expert, but it has been scrutinized by other experts in the topic. Lecture notes don't have that kind of quality control—you have no confidence that someone who's written a lecture on the Epic of Gilgamesh has studied the text in depth, let alone its social and cultural background, or that s/he knows how to read Sumerian or Akkadian. In addition, these are notes--not a polished argument, not a fully researched treatment. It's not hard to find a better source.


 * The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute is "an educational partnership between Yale University and the New Haven Public Schools designed to strengthen teaching and learning in local schools..." Simply looking at the URL for this source tells us that the materials and the program are hosted at Yale, looking farther tells us that the program is run by Yale faculty. So, yeah, it's materials written by Yale for use by New Haven teachers. And it is not the kind of peer-reviewed academic source WP:RS tells us is the best to use--in other words, we want journal articles or books by experts in the subject.


 * I have trouble believing that I'm seeing an editor defend the use of SparkNotes as a source. I think that speaks volumes about the care and effort that went into this "article". And yes, I am scoffing. That's the appropriate response to a type of source that I wouldn't have been allowed to use for a middle school essay.


 * If epic of Gilgamesh is missing material on the interpretation of the text, that suggests that the place to start including that material in Wikipedia is in epic of Gilgamesh, not in a new article whose scope and purpose is unclear. Article space is not a place for developing rough drafts or vague articles that lack a well-defined topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It is too soon to know whether there is enough material online for the article to be greatly improved in any case, but I think the article is valid (for reasons already given in the previous response) if not perceived as very well defined. That the article is currently a rather loose effort to produce something worth-while shouldn't detract from the legitimacy of the article, because, if the article is important enough as an idea of something to provide information and knowledge to the general public, then effort should be made to reach a definition, and therefore boundaries for the article and a goal for locating material. There isn't an argument to make on the grounds of scope and purpose because the article could be redefined by a re-naming, which is simple enough. More-over, I don't perceive a lack of coherence in the material as a whole, both myself and Akhilleus (and who-ever else concerned) already know the article is about aiding understanding and making meaning apparent in study of the Epic of Gilgamesh. That sources specifically exist at all on this subject demonstrates the need for continuing with this article. In terms of the value of sources, this depends on whether further sources might be found to replace those thought insufficiently strong for inclusion, and I (or anyone else) haven't yet thought to do this. Whalestate (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete unnecessary content fork, giving a short original-researchy digest (cited to publications which do not support the text) and listing a lot of red-linked names of "characters" which can not be presumed to be notable. Kraxler (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2015 (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.