Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Lebanon-related articles


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. NW ( Talk ) 22:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Index of Lebanon-related articles

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Most likely a category. Damiens .rf 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Actually this procedure is found in almost all other countries as well and is very useful. We cannot treat this on its own, but as putting Lebanon in line (in par) with all other country listings of similar logic and nature. Check for example these country indexes:

An American continent page Asian country pages African pages European page: Oceania page: Lebanese and many other pages were designed exactly as many others. In fact see how many countries have these lists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_country-related_topics Why should we deprive Lebanon of such an easy reference that can be expandable even further. The index works exactly like a dictionary would whereas categories are thematic and much harder to locate and arguably very time consuming. Admittedly some searchers go by subject, some other searchers go by alphabetical order. The only way a category would work this way is if ALL Lebanese subjects are categorized with Category:Lebanon category which is not what we want to do. I suggest this Index of Lebanon-related subjects stays as is and even improved further with even more easy-access alphabetcal entries leading directly into the Lebanese pages, because it is very useful for many who don't want to go into the hassles of tens if not hundreds of segmented categories. Both systems can live together side by side. There is no need to exclude a system which is applied to so many other countries. I suggest a strong keep. werldwayd (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Canada-related_articles
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Japan-related_articles (check each letter expansion)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_India-related_articles
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Egypt-related_articles
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Portugal-related_articles
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Australia-related_articles
 * Keep Although "easy reference" is not what I would call this or any of the other "Index of ______-related articles", which read like long blue paragraphs, I'd probably grumble even more if each of these entries had its own line. Some people find this to be more efficient than other forms of navigation, and it's clear that this and others have been maintained since 2007.  I know that the argument might be made that a category serves the same purpose, but "category Lebanon" is fragmented into 22 subcategories, which then split into sub-sub-categories, and even sub-sub-sub-categories; which kind of defeats the purpose of having a category in the first place.  I look at this as a list of Wikipedia articles about Lebanon, without the dreaded "L-word".  Mandsford (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two reasons why new lines for each entry are not used. ONE: Almost all country-related lists are done this way. We are just copying a Wikipedia style that has been applied elsewhere TWO: It is a space-saving device specially if there are a lot of entries. If each was on a new line, the list would look 4-5 times longer. For a list with say 20-30-40 suggestions, it would be ok, but not if there are hundreds of entries werldwayd (talk)
 * That makes good sense. The more I think about it, the more I realize that separate lines would go on for page after page.  Mandsford (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This is basically a list; categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. To justify deletion, there must be some very special reason.  DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Of course this is a list and not a category and lists are all around Wikipedia. I cant find any sensible reason for this Afd except multiplying the number of edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.89.188.61 (talk) 21:03, 2 November 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.