Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian women government ministers


 * 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.  So Why  11:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

List of Canadian women government ministers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a useful list. This is serving only to replicate the contents of -- but the standard needed for a list and a category to coexist is that the list is doing something different: extended content about the overall concept, providing a one-stop-shopping location for a category that's otherwise diffused into subcategories instead of directly containing all of its potential entries, being more completist than a category can be since a category can't hold entries that don't have articles to file, and on and so forth. But this list isn't doing any of those things: it's just listing the exact same entries (and not even all of them), which means it isn't serving any purpose that the category isn't already fulfilling. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Original editor has been blocked for misbehavior, created a lot of articles requiring cleanup, and I see nothing in this particular list worth saving.  --Lockley (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN as complement to Category:Canadian women government ministers. The nomination misstates what CLN says, and the difference from the category comes from the inherent characteristics of the format itself (CLN lays these out, in addition to noting how some editors/readers prefer one format over another so don't delete either just based on your preference for one). You instead need a special reason why a list shouldn't exist in tangent with the category rather than special justification for it existing. Notwithstanding that, the nomination also fails to consider the list's potential for annotation, direct sourcing, table formatting and sorting, and other alternate means of organization, all of which are functions a category cannot perform, and this consideration of potential is required by WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, and WP:PRESERVE. "Delete because it has not yet been developed" is simply not a valid position at AFD, yet that's what I read above. postdlf (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as per nom. The list it totally redundant with  and will be much harder to maintain and keep up to date. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Delete -- the category is sufficient in this case and is more useful anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep but reorganize. Alphabetical isn't useful but there's every reason to have this list, ideally organized chronologically and with identifying information about which ministry each woman headed.--Carwil (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think that my understanding of WP:CLN is somewhere between Bearcat's and Postdif's, but I do see this as a case when a list article is a reasonable addition to the category. A set of inclusion criteria would be easy to specify, and the list is not so large as to be impossible to maintain (regardless of whether someone is, at this time, maintaining it). In fact, we have a whole category Category:Lists of female political office-holders. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – Upon consideration, keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Canadian women government ministers, and per the suggestions for article improvements suggested by and  above. I have expanded the article a bit, including content that cannot be included in category pages, such as descriptions and references, and may expand it more if it is retained. North America1000 05:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - As per . SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 04:44, 30 June 2017 (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.