Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of medicine articles


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

The result was delete.  MBisanz  talk 11:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Index of medicine articles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Serves no purpose, other articles already exist with this purpose Carl Fredik   💌 📧 21:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Which articles specifically? postdlf (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A really interesting proposal. Delete I vote to remove this enourmous time sink that provides no benefit to readers by virtue of being constantly out of date. We have at least 30,000 articles (plus anatomy, physiology, medicine) that can all be put here. What use is there maintaining this huge list? It could, in addition, be automated thus saving thousands of wo/man hours and providing a still equally useless (but temporally present) resource. I fear though there may be some superarching policy or group relating to index articles that may stymy this proposal. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you mean this guideline and Stand-alone lists. That said, according to the entries at Portal:Contents/Indices, this page should actually be called Index of medicine-related articles - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Category_talk:Indexes_of_topics is full of people who say "indexes are useless and duplicate categories" while others says "it is useful for navigational purposes, even for non-editors". The former camp sounds more convincing to me, but I could not see any community consensus on the subject, and an AfD is certainly not the good way to bring it.
 * If I was forced to !vote I would apply WP:SAL and this means an immediate delete (unmaintainable list, impossible to be exhaustive or to pick which ones to include), but (as pointed out in the link above) applying a content guideline to a navigation article makes little sense. Tigraan Click here to contact me 14:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC) We shouldn't confuse the deletion of this specific index with any debate concerning other indexes, even though they are arguably worthless and there is a discussion to be had there as well. This index has a number of qualities that make it entirely pointless beyond that of ordinary indexes — it is: Thus it serves no purpose whatsoever — not in any even hypothetical use-case. It should be absolutely evident that it should be deleted at once. Carl Fredik  💌 📧 10:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not maintained — it simply includes a tiny number of possible links, arbitrarily chosen
 * Covers too broad a topic — even linking 1% of already existing relevant articles would cause it to be unmanageably large. I will not load properly in an ordinary browser.
 * For this one I would say delete and start over. In its current state it fails to fulfill its purpose. I do wonder though what the development history is concerning indexes and categories. From a look at some random index and category pages, it looks as if indexes are a relic from the days before categories were introduced, but I'm not sure. I think that index pages in general need an RfC, to see what value indexes have over categories (and lists). - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best for now, imaginably acceptable but I suggest a larger article at best next time. SwisterTwister   talk  22:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SALAT (too broad in scope) DeVerm (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2016 (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.