Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nursing 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 Rename. The consensus is to keep and rename the article to Index of nursing articles per precedent and WP:NOTDUP. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 07:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

List of Nursing articles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pointless, and nearly empty, rehash of Category:Nursing Bazj (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. sst✈discuss 15:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm voting to delete because, as the nominator said, this is something better handled by a category and does not belong in the article space. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- KTC (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. A list could be constructed, but this isn't it. This is a weird mishmash of links for the most part unrelated specifically to nursing; one's a training programme for doctors, another's for CPR, which isn't restricted to nurses. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, now that it's somewhat better. I've added and deleted (bed-wetting?) some entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is what categories are for. Fails notability and list guidelines. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename to Index of nursing articles. This is an established type of Wikipedia page. See Category:Indexes of topics for other examples. That it isn't complete isn't reason for deletion. I'll also note that per WP:NOTDUP categories and lists are not in competition with one another such that the existence or potential for one justifies deleting the other. However, this isn't an appropriate list in the traditional encyclopedic sense so shouldn't be named as such -- it's a navigational aid like the rest of those indexes. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I've added the articles from Category:Nursing to get it started. Ideally this would be organized or even eventually moved to Outline of nursing, but for now it's just an index of articles which still needs the subcategories of nursing and other categories. Given it's no longer a tiny, incomplete list and with the precedent visible in Category:Indexes of topics would you reconsider your delete !vote? &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 16:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you going to update it each time an article is added to the category, or should we rename it List of Nursing Articles as of 28 November 2015? I commend your effort but think it was misplaced. Bazj (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ???? Let's not be silly. Shall we also rename every article about a subject that might need updating at some point (i.e. every article)? Certainly every non-exhaustive list on Wikipedia would need that sort of renaming -- in some cases, on a daily basis. It sounds like your issue is with the index format of article, not with this particular one, but don't use AfD as a mechanism to make that point. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that essay, but I have some quibbles with that. First, WP:NOTESAL is policy and I believe takes precedence. How does this list or index meet the notability guidelines? Because it's a list/index of wiki articles, there won't be any significant coverage of the topic (coverage may be of the topics of those articles, but certainly not of the WP articles themselves, which is what counts here). Also WP:NOTCATALOG: articles shouldn't be "Simple listings without context information." I don't believe there are independent sources that list all of the topics, or attempt to list these topics, together. Personally, I don't agree with that essay. I don't see what the point is having categories if we'll just also create lists of those articles as well without any context, organization or any other additions. Also note that many of the advantages listed in the essay for "lists" don't apply to this article - e.g., "can include items that are not linked." Since this is only a list of topics that are already covered by WP, nothing can be added, nor can any context be given. Happy to hear your response on this though. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (and others) - WP:NOTDUP is not an essay. It's a guideline, which means there is broad consensus that it's how things should be done in general. For the purpose of AfD, policies and guidelines are what determine the outcome (and, in fact, more often guidelines that policies since guidelines are more specific when it comes to procedures and standards rather than broad principles). Also, WP:NOTESAL is not a policy, but another guideline. But NOTESAL also doesn't conflict with NOTDUP. NOTESAL says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set" (emphasis mine). The guideline for stand-alone lists is clearer (Stand-alone lists). See under "Specialized list articles" it gives:

"Indices, alphabetized lists of articles on a given subject, are part of Wikipedia's Contents navigation system, and are listed at Portal:Contents/Indices. Examples include Index of psychology articles and Index of Syria-related articles. For more information, see index (publishing), and WikiProject Indexes."
 * So you can disagree, but the place for that disagreement is on the talk pages for those guidelines. Disagreeing with them here amounts to saying "it should be deleted because WP:IAR". &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to Index of nursing articles, per . Also keep per WP:HEY. North America1000 01:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename as per Rhododendrites' analysis.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:48, 4 December 2015 (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.