Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of infrared 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   keep. JohnCD (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

List of infrared articles

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Can be replaced by the category system. Otherwise, there is no notability for this article. This article seems to be an administrative article. Topic is also too narrow to be renamed to "Index of plasma (physics) articles" Curb Chain (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep (although technically I should say delete).  Wikipedia needs to create a place/legitimacy for this type of an article/list.  It fills a unfilled need. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This is also a new article I just created a few days ago, and it will be more notable for I only have it linked to infrared article. If you look at Index of radiation articles which has only 128 views in its statistics for that month that was created in 2005 and is not complete yet, which is kinda underrated since radiation is a huge x factor in science. This infrared list is good because it has a rack load of red links that one day could be created to a article, so its good to keep in touch with this article for it benefits people who want to find a infrared specific field of interest. Seems like you curb only want to delete articles I created List of laser articles, List of plasma (physics) articles and not try to help improve articles for this list will not harm anything and adding it to a category will make it less notable since some people have no clue of categories, plus Wikipedia category list does not show up on Google's search bar. I can also fix it more to improve it.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 *  Delete [ Comment ]  per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Picking a broad physics topic, making and populating a list article, then spamming the See Also sections of any related article in order to drive up the page views of the list article is not a sustainable model (see also Articles for deletion/List of plasma (physics) articles and Articles for deletion/List of laser articles). --Kkmurray (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing this to a comment. On reflection, this is a WP:UGLY/WP:LINK issue not a content issue. --Kkmurray (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I picked it because its my passion and its vital to science. How does it indiscriminate to anything it is not a Excessive listings of statistics its a list of infrared topics to help others find infrared topics. Spamming is when it relates to nothing of that topic or is sending garbage info to it, linking list of infrared to see also is not spamming plus I only linked it to infrared article. I just use the statistics chart as a example of how notable it is and compare it with others. I do not get any credit fame or reward for NO2 overdrive boosting the statistics up. If this infrared list is deleted than almost all of Wikipedia's list of articles on whatever topic should all be deleted example, Index of wave articles, Index of solar energy articles ,Index of energy articles, Index of radiation articles, List of Pokémon characters, and List of Pokémon, 90% of the world has no clue of these dinosaur like pokemon plus it has no use in real life. Like User:Stvfetterly said it meats Wikipedia's standards WP:LIST. Just curious how does this all play out if more people vote for it to be deleted would it be deleted.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * includes political and economic articles related to energy. Index of energy article Index of energy articles's theme is energy-per-the-physics-theory, so articles with a theoretic-scientific connection are listed.Curb Chain (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Its a valuable infrared list source to find other infrared related topics to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo laser plasma (talk • contribs) 04:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)  — Halo laser plasma (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - Per WP:NOTDUP, "redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Categories and list articles can exist simultaneously, to further accommodate user browsing per various user preferences. Also, per this section of the editing guideline, ..."Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - A useful list. Theoretically, it would be better served by categorization as opposed to a list, but the people who own categorization will find some way to delete the category as not specific enough or "overcategorization". - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If a categorization is trivial, then the same article would be trivial as well.Curb Chain (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and I didn't say categorization would be trivial, I said the people who WP:OWN the categorization wikiproject would get the category deleted because, although it would be very useful, there's surely some old discussion they had on a talkpage someplace that sayd they don't want it. Additionally, per Northamerica1000's point above, arguing that it is redundant to a category is not a valid argument for deletion. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No one owns the category "project", nor is it a wikiproject. Maybe this misconception is informing your opinion of Categories and Lists.Curb Chain (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The advantage of Lists is that you can add references to the article. Doing so would prove that an item on a list fits the inclusion criteria.  This list here only lists laser-related articles on wikipedia.  This serves no extra purpose that Categories do not.Curb Chain (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDUP. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that lists are regularly deleted and kept not on the basis of this guideline you are quoting voids this argument.Curb Chain (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep or Strong keep for I did not know about these extra terms, but if the speedy keep does not count as a keep vote than put Strong keep. Again categories cant be searched on the web and you need to add a : after category in order for it to show up on Wikipedia where list is much more of a common word to type in, having both categories and list gives Wikipedia users a more diverse way to find info. I still have more to add to this list.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2012 (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.