Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Soviet Union-related topics

List of Soviet Union-related topics was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 to keep the article.


 * I started it and I'll kill it :-). With the advent of "categories" this under-nourished page is doomed obsolete. Mikkalai 06:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Use categories instead. jni 07:31, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. We have (I think) decided to do this to List of Australia-related topics as well. Categories are designed for this -- Chuq 07:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It allows one to see changes to a large swath of articles (related changes). With categories, I believe you can't do this, certainly not with nested categories. We still use List of Ireland-related topics for this purpose. zoney &#09827; talk 14:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the pages can be moved to the Wikipedia namespace, in that case? Soviet Union-related topics, community watchlist or something like that. &mdash; David Remahl 16:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, perhaps we should do that with our list. zoney &#09827; talk 16:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Categories do the job. --Improv 15:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is somewhat of a protest vote to advocate the continuing use of lists in such cases. I am a big fan of categories, but they do not render lists obsolete or moot. User:Zoney is quite correct in stating their usefulness to monitor changes. Moreover, in my opinion, lists such as List of New Jersey-related topics should not be categorically moved to the Wikipedia namespace but kept in the main namespace. They are useful beyond the community in that they allow a flat viewing of topics, rather than the nested view of categories. You can get a glimpse of everything all at once, rather than having to burrow down through categories. Until categories have that capability of flat display, they provide a nice view of topics complementary but not superceded by categories. Moreover the list allows for cutomizing the title and annotating each link in a way categories currently do not. Perhaps future technology in categories will allow such thing, but until they do, the articles are quite useful.-- Decumanus 19:58, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
 * Keep. Categories and lists have different purposes.  RickK 20:37, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  21:06, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Categories cannot handle all the features of lists.  Until that is fixed, we should keep both. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 21:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep for all of the reasons stated above. Even RickK is voting keep, say no more. -- [[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 17:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep until categories catch up in these functionalities. Samaritan 07:35, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could be interesting, even the U.S.S.R no longer exists... [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk) ]] 08:29, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.