Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arecaceae genera by alphabetical order


 * 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 withdraw as I don't see this being deleted. Tavix | Talk  04:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Arecaceae genera by alphabetical order

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

Redundant article to both List of Arecaceae genera, which presents all this information in a well-organized list format, and Category:Arecales genera, which presents the same information in an alphabetical format. Tavix | Talk  15:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  15:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Alphabetic listing is a completely different approach to a listing than a taxonomic list, and the only reason this is proposed is because the article currently have suspiciously similar titles: if List of Arecaceae genera was even modically more developed, it'd be at taxonomy of the Arecaceae and nobody would even consider this discussion relevant (compare taxonomy of the Orchidaceae and list of natural Orchidaceae genera). Furthermore, a list can provide much more information than a mere category can (starting with author citations and synonyms, such as in list of Acer species), and "redundancy" with a category is normally no justification for deletion. Circeus (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if the other list was more developed, this article would still be redundant as they are both providing the same information. Also, I've read WP:CLN and I know that lists can provide more than what categories do, I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is there is already a perfectly good list for this information and simply sorting it by alphabetical order is redundant, because that is what the category's job is to do. Tavix | Talk  17:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleting an otherwise perfectly legitimate page merely because it is not perfect already (i.e. you want to delete it solely for not including extra information, if it did, you would be laughed out of AFD and you know this) is incredibly shortsighed and not even worth refuting. Circeus (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The two lists serve two different functions, and both warrant inclusion. It would be possible to merge them into a single page with a sortable table, but this would, I think, heavily constrain the development of the taxonomy page. Hesperian 00:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I agree with Circeus that ultimately the taxonomic list should be included in a taxonomy of Arecaceae page, at which time this list should be moved to List of Arecaceae genera. Hesperian 00:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As mentioned by Circeus, List of Arecaceae genera should be at Taxonomy of the Arecaceae and as mentioned by Hesperian List of Arecaceae genera by alphabetical order should subseqently be moved to List of Arecaceae genera. Lists of genera, species etc., when the titles are unqualified, should be in alphabetical order by default. Melburnian (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Categories of this size are useless for browsing, since they are spread over several pages. Alphabetic lists of topics are common, despite the overlap with categories - most have been renamed "Index of foo" in recent times, rather than "list of foo by alphabetical order" - see WikiProject Index.  Guettarda (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - although I'm somewhat sympathetic to the notion that a category covers the alphabetical angle, the current category isn't alphabetical because Elaeis is under "oil palm" instead of Elaeis. A list also can give author abbreviations (which this list now does), and perhaps things like geographic range or a description of a few words (not currently in this list, but in some species lists elsewhere on wikipedia). Kingdon (talk) 01:10, 20 July 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.