Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lists related to William Shakespeare


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

List of lists related to William Shakespeare

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:Listcruft. I do not see the point in having that list. Lists on WP are not a notable subject. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, and rehash as a category. Lists are not unconscionable, but this would truly be better served by a category. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnecessary list; a category would serve this purpose far better. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Shakespeare is incredibly notable. However, a list of lists? I don't see any handle on which to hag a reason to include this. If anything, this would be better as a category.  Dloh  cierekim  03:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Switch to keep per DGG Dloh  cierekim  22:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete lists of lists do exist, usually as "lists of books" etc. but in this case, i agree, better as a category within shakespeare, "shakespeare lists" would be fine.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, better served by a category. J I P  | Talk 07:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that "a category would serve this purpose far better" runs contrary to the relevant editing guideline. There are many possible reasons to have a list as well as a category.  Unlike categories, lists can be sortable; unlike categories, lists can include references.  Also, while Wikipedians can usually use categories proficiently, our end-users generally aren't even aware of categories, and a list serves their purposes much better. Contrary to the long list of !votes above, I'm going to go with keep as a list that serves a navigational function.  This is perfectly encyclopaedic, because encyclopaedias benefit from contents pages.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The list doesn't meet any criteria for an article, and all of these lists are already in the navbox. The navbox is sufficient.  Jim Miller  See me 22:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete--I am very sympathetic to S Marshall's argument, but in this case, the list of lists being so short, I don't see the advantages of this list, especially, as pointed out above, the navbox. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a navigational device, not an article. A navigational device is list format should in my opinion, not be judged on N, but on whether it's of use. we could and should make a category also, but it should not be deleted unless it i s in some way harmful  or confusing or worthless. I don;t see that it is. Some people like looking at list instead of categories, and, not being PAPER, we can perfectly well do both all the time unless it for some reason would be actually wrong. No such reason is given here. S Marshall, maybe you & I need to propose a specific guideline that addresses this point.    DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I had thought that WP:CLN would be sufficient.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability criteria do not apply to lists; see Lists and Categories, lists, and navigation templates. We also have, for example, List of lists of weapons, List of lists of small solar system bodies, Lists of highest points, Lists of countries, Lists of mathematics topics, Lists of Christians, Lists of United States Supreme Court cases, Lists of universities and colleges, Lists of journals, Lists of integrals, Lists of Olympic medalists, and so on and so forth, all useful navigational aids, and nobody will be served by deleting them. --Lambiam 01:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a list of lists related to foo? A list is fine and all, but this doesn't seem to fit very well. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 07:18, 23 November 2009 (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.