Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnum pistol cartridges


 * 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. Consensus is for keeping, and the arguments that it should be expanded to include further details would add value. Michig (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Magnum pistol cartridges

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A list of articles that seems to have no major purpose other than to duplicate an existing category, and fails every point of WP:LISTPURP. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and suggest nom reads linked page. Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial because the two categories work together - WP:LISTPURP  -- No  unique  names  20:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Easily meets the requirements of WP:LISTPURP. Ryan Vesey 20:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTPURP. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment To clarify my nomination, I look at WP:LISTPURP and WP:AOAL (which the previous one ultimately refers to) and I see nothing in that provides any value whatsoever beyond what any reader might get when they visit Category:Magnum pistol cartridges. I also consulted WP:OUTCOMES and noted that
 * "However, this criterion does not mean that it's always necessary or valid to have both a list and a category for any given grouping of topics. ... Lists are sometimes also deleted because they duplicate the functionality of a category and the category serves the purpose better."
 * The list in this case appears to serve no purpose other than to duplicate the category. That's as far as the rationale for the nomination, and other editors will decide whether or not this needs to be deleted. There is also the matter of the creator's behavior, which I am thinking of bringing to the attention of WP:AN at this point, however that is not relevant to the AFD. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. A list without any annotations that serves little if no use to readers. The info is best covered by the articles listed at Magnum. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. WP:LISTPURP states that lists are for readers or for editors to develop WP. The list in question does nothing for WP development and I fail to see what use the article is to readers. So can editors who quote WP:LISTPURP as a reason to keep the list please give reasons. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it says that "Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes" (emphasis mine). -- No  unique  names  01:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, yep. Some lists are good for development, some lists are good for readers and some lists are neither. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I somehow missed the part of your statement above about not seeing a usefulness to readers. My apologies.  I blame it on the season's rushed pace.  -- No  unique  names  15:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, although I am not a huge fan of lists. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you like to  cite a policy  or guideline to  qualify  this vote? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, I don't see how it meets WP:LISTPURP, and I don't see how this list can really be useful for editors or readers. The same material is already contained in the disambig page at Magnum.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC).
 * So 8 entries under "Handguns" accurately and completely covers the information presented in a list of 20 articles (at least 19 cartridges)? That seems quite illogical.  -- No  unique  names  01:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete: unnecessary duplication  of a category. If  the cat  is not  complete, it  should be updated by  adding  to  the related articles on  weaponry/ammunition etc. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Could be extended to provide info beyond a simple list of entries, e.g. including details on each cartridge, making it sortable: this is why lists have value above categories. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Nouniquenames.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 00:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Can and should be used to give some actual information beyond the name, but a list of notable things of a specific notable type is an appropriate article.  DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 6 January 2013 (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.