Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of occult writers


 * 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 of the debate was keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  22:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

List of occult writers
A bare lsit of links with no encyclopaedic content (i.e. technically speediable); a list of writers in alphabetical order. IOW, a list doing the job of a category. Just zis Guy you know? 22:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, yes, it duplicates the category format, but it's a valid subject for a list and it'll probably draw some attention and improvement. There must be some folks interested in the occult among our editors.  Not speediable because it's a long article.  CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 22:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have been down this road many times before and this article has previously survived AfD as a unanimous keep: Votes_for_deletion/List_of_occult_authors, which the nom should have indicated. No reason to delete this unless we are going to delete many, most or all of the 150 comparable lists found at Category:Lists of writers. Lists are quite helpful to many users. They can and should be expanded or annotated and that is the solution this nom should be proposing. They should not be deleted, although categories are mostly useless. --JJay 22:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous AfD. Unless something has changed to warrant a new AfD, can this be speedy kept? --Tango 23:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -999 (Talk) 13:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Category:Occult writers or, failing that, delete. Any time the previous debate was a "VfD" I'm skeptical about the idea that we shouldn't debate again; the community and our standards evolve.  In this case, the prior VfD was based on the idea that we could have a category instead, but now there actually IS one.  The Occult writers category is well-populated, and the list adds nothing to the encyclopedia beyond the category.  I find the above keep votes on pretty shaky ground, considering the category exists and is more complete.  The only thing we'd be losing is the handful of redlinks.  Mango juice talk 20:13, 12 June 2006 (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.