Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Buddhist topics

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. CSTAR 01:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of Buddhist topics
You have already deleted the imitation, Index of topics in alternative medicine see, now here is your chance to delete the original. The same dumb reason should apply since only the subject matter differs. The original reason was unintelligible, so here is a rough translation: Redundancy with their more complete list of terms and concepts article. This redundant list should probably be deleted and merged into the more complete list of Buddhist terms and concepts article. -- John Gohde 04:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Come up with a reason that isn't sour grapes. Until then, Keep. Snowspinner 05:01, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete simply because Category:Buddhism now does a better job. Are all articles on this list entered in the Category:Buddhism? That is the only question. --Wetman 05:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - What is true for one index is also true for an identical index on another topic, unless of course the first index was deleted for bogus reasons. -- John Gohde 05:09, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, duplicate/redundant list. Megan1967 05:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It is beginning to look like Index of topics in alternative medicine was deleted for completely bogus reasons because these votes for deletion are nothing but a popularity contest by editors without a life who live on Wikipedia that has nothing to with anything. -- John Gohde 05:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lists and categories have different purposes.  RickK 06:33, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid list, and not redundant with Buddhist terms and concepts. Listed on vfd solely for the purpose of making a stink. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:36, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm sick of people using VfD as a tool to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. /s&#618;zl&#230;k  &#762;/  07:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Definitely Keep This list is far more easy to use than any category. It allows to have some clear formatting which unfortunately a category doesn't have. It also permits the listing "in red" of some article names which do not exist yet, signalling gaps and inviting contributions, which also a category cannot do. By the way, I thought edits on Wikipedia should try to be constructive, rather than destructive: in doubt, and if many people find such a list useful, please leave it to them, even if it creates some sort of redundancy. PHG 12:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Put here for WP:POINT-making. See also the entry for Template:Buddhism on WP:TFD (removed by Netoholic as obvious bad faith). Nominator is upset at nomination of pet articles a few months ago - David Gerard 12:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. &#9999; Oven Fresh  ²  17:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons given by User:PHG Shantavira 18:52, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep can we instead delete disruptive users like John Gohde? &mdash;ExplorerCDT 22:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful list. Jonathunder 03:47, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
 * Keep. Invalid nomination.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 04:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Antandrus 04:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hopefully the redlinks on the list will show the areas on Buddhism where articles need to be created. Capitalistroadster 08:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * While I generally favor categories over lists, this one seems finite enough to have a point. Keep. Radiant! 10:08, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obviously, John Gohde nominated this because he is upset that Index of topics in alternative medicine was deleted.  That makes this a bad-faith nomination.  It seems that we should remove bad-faith nominations, rather than vote on them.  If we are going to vote, however, we should vote on the merits and not vote to "Keep" something simply because it has been submitted to VfD in bad faith to make a point.   The arguments that were used to justify the deletion of Index of topics in alternative medicine do indeed justify the deletion of this article.    As was already argued, there is no need for a manually-maintained list of topics in a subject area.  That is what categories are for.   As for using such a list as a place to call for the creation of articles by inserting red links, there are other, better, mechanisms for that also.  --BM 15:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The category template does a fine job, as should Buddhist terms and concepts. Seems redundant to me, and far more difficult to maintain that a category. However, I believe that it may be a bit disingenuous to submit both the list (this VfD) and the Buddhism template for deletion, as has been done in this case. Listing both seems to indicate that someone is trying to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. IMO, the template should stay. HyperZonktalk 17:47, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain Malicious nomination.--Lee Hunter 13:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Current policy is to use both catagories and lists.  Lists can contain red links.  Then again, red links could be included in the catagory pages themselves... hmmm....  --L33tminion | (talk) 15:20, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. May be of use to some people. -- Infrogmation 17:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)