Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of economics topics


 * 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. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

List of economics topics

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

We have here an alphabetical list of economical topics, that in my opinion would serve better as a category (perhaps it already exists). I though list pages should only be used if the data is not appropriate for categories. → Aza Toth 21:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no such rule. Nor should there be. But it would be nice in this case so see more use made of the opportunities for organization provided by a list.  DGG (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am the original creator of the list. The list was created long before the category feature was available on Wikipedia, when the only way of tracking categories of articles was lists like this. So there is a case that the list is no longer needed.  Ultimately I think this should come down to whether readers find it useful - I have no strong views either way.  However, if we do decide that we no longer need the list, I strongly suggest that this is done by a redirect to , rather than a full delete, to avoid breaking links. Enchanter 00:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The ~10 redlinks in the list cannot be included in a category. I think that Category:Economics complements this list nicely, but doesn't supplant it because the category does not organize the information on Wikipedia's economics articles in an index-like manner. Bláthnaid 00:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator posed the question of "perhaps a category exists". Turns out it doesn't (the closest I see is a category on economics lists.  Since there is no Category:Economics topics, and since nobody's volunteering to make one, I think this is an obvious keep.  I'd pose the question to the nominator... given that there is no category, are you open to reconsidering the nomination?  Part of it was contingent on whether a category exists, from what I understand.  Mandsford 01:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a useful and non-duplicative list, per DGG and Mandsford. Bearian 01:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Lists should not be sacrificed for categories. Categories are not a replacement for lists. Quoting WP:CLS: "These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the other."   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    07:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment isn't this or shouldn't this be part of the Contents navigation scheme? 132.205.99.122 20:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the Transhumanist. -- phoebe/ (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per it is notable and not all terms will have an entry---thus a category wouldn't work.Balloonman (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2007 (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.