Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of articles about Three Mile Island


 * 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   delete. Better served as a category/navbox. &mdash; Joseph Fox 01:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

List of articles about Three Mile Island

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lists must be notable, just like other articles. This is a list about Wikipedia content. Unless someone has written about "How Three Mile Island has been covered in Wikipedia", this is not a notable topic. If someone wants to make a Portal or Outline with similar information, that may be plausible (if it doesn't exist already), but this is not a valid mainspace topic. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. All of these can or should be in the category; the list does not aid navigation. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant with the category. J I P  &#124; Talk 06:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Category listing are currently unable have text that expounds upon concepts, whereas articles are. See WP:NOTDUP for further rationale and clarifiation regarding this notion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I know that. The thing is, this article does not even try to expound upon the concepts, it just lists them. J I P  &#124; Talk 23:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep And change to a disambig page (which is what this really is). The arguement of "redundant with the category" is in itself redundant, as lists and categories go hand-in-hand, per WP:CLN.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to "List of Three Mile Island topics". Useful as an index article, per WP:SETINDEX. Add disambiguation if necessary. A useful page to navigate Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That fails WP:LISTN. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into Three_Mile_Island_accident. Thats where a list of related info belongs. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 12:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable list, fails WP:N. This could be made into a category or perhaps a navbox and would be far more useful for readers. - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just want to clarify on (at least my interpretation) of how lists work. We can have lists about "things of type X" in the real world.  We cannot have "lists of articles about things related to X."  The former is an actual list of content; the latter is solely a navigational aid, a kind of crude table of contents.  I have no problem with lists that duplicate categories; I have a problem with lists that are "self-referential".  As far as I can see, nothing in our policies covering lists allow us to have any type of article titled List of articles about ....  And it shouldn't.  We have so many different ways of categorizing information, both reader-facing (lists of topics, portals, outlines, glossaries, overview articles, dab pages), editor-facing (Wikiprojects, noticeboards), and dual-facing (categories, and the search box)...why do we need, in just a select few instances, yet another type of organizational tool?  It's simply the mark of a bad product to have too many different organizing schemes.  More than one is good (I'm thinking here of how a textbook has a ToC, an Index, and a glossary; or how help for Microsoft products has a search box, a glossary, and an Index); too many is redundant.  Too many guarantees that one list or the other isn't fully updated. Too many guarantees that one list or another gets to be used for POV pushing (consider the problems with had with Ethnic categories and Wikiprojects aggressively pushing themselves onto articles).  Maybe I'm raising issues that go beyond one (or two) deletion discussions, and need to be raised in a larger forum. But I think that we have to consider these things as we make these individual decisions. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have just added a wikilink to the orphaned stub of an article on Jack Herbein. IMHO, you might also like to consider deleting that page, instead/as-well. I'm tempted by the suggestion, above, that this page, here, though, is a useful disambiguation page. TheAMmollusc (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I (nom) would be willing to see this as a dab page, removing all of the See Also, since all of the articles actually contain "Three Mile Island", and thus there could be confusion when that is used as a search term. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the part of the dab guideline that deals with this issue (WP:PTM—partial title matches) that seems to be an inappropriate use of a dab. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge as Exit2DOS proposed to the see also section. Seems plain obvious to me. Let's see: it's a list of 6 Wikipedia articles and we have this long discussion? (The list is also a disguised violation of WP:SELF as "articles" in its title actually means "Wikipedia articles". When I first saw this discussion, I expected it to be about a bibliography, i.e. articles that appeared somewhere else. Only Wikipedia articles are articles, huh? We have a List of US presidents not a List of articles about US presidents.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Making a navbox from it as Ahunt proposes would also work; it would be just another way of organizing a "see also". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep some people like navboxes (not including me--I consider them ugly obtrusive and an incentive to over-linking), others like other navigational devices. All all justified, including lists of articles, as long as someone is willing to maintain them. All ways of organizing material that can potentially help users are good, We should not be here deleting the ones we don't care for. As long as they're not misleading, they're acceptable. Notability isn't an issue with navigational tools--they're basically part of the structure, not the contents. that these should even be discussed in the context of articles is wrong: they're justthe same as redirect and categories.   DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is a short list that is redundant to the category. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as this does not meet the WP:GNG - no coverage of the topic"[Wikipedia] articles about Three Mile Island". Karanacs (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Three Mile Island accident, evidently, as a short list of related links.  Sandstein   06:19, 2 November 2011 (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.