Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of online encyclopedias


 * 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The result was   closed after nomination withdrawn. Bduke (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

List of online encyclopedias

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

An alphabetic bullet list of wikilinks. Provides maintenance overhead, but (in this form) no added value compared to Category:Online encyclopedias.  Sandstein  13:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn; the list has been improved and is no longer redundant to the category.  Sandstein  06:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep This has the potential to be more than the indiscriminate list that it is currently. Mandsford (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the deletion, lists like this do add relevant content to Wikipedia, and numerous examples of already established pages support not deleting this one. Pages like List of social networking sites exists, and List of tallest people was nominated for deletion, but kept, despite eloquent arguments about the notability policy, thus the list notability deletion (when it has value, which I argue it does) has a kind of case law in its favor. As far as a category doing a better job to the original purpose, it is not unheard of to have both an article and a category on the subject. For example, the Lists of people is even a part of the Category:Lists of people. Scapler (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, lists and categories can and should coexist. The two lists you link to, however, provide more information than their respective categories. This one does not.  Sandstein   16:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But it has the potential to, and that makes it worth keeping. The list as it stands now is a building block to an even better list.  Why delete it and take a step backward in development, forcing others to redo all this work in their effort to provide a list that meets your standards for completion?  Such an all-or-nothing approach is wasteful.  Also we'd be giving up another benefit:  by having both lists and categories, you provide 2 methods for gathering links in Wikipedia.  Some editors prefer lists (for example I rarely add entries to categories, but I have added thousands upon thousands of links to lists).  A list often contains links that the corresponding category does not, and vice versa - so each can be used to update the other!  Also, when entries drop off of categories there is no record of it, because categories have no history.  Lists do, and therefore they provide a way to track the existence of articles and of link support to a subject - via redlinks.  The Transhumanist  19:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because needless redundancy should be avoided. If one writes a list, one should at least make it a bit more useful than its corresponding category. For instance, by making it a sortable table with date and topic fields. That's not asking for completeness, that's common sense.  Sandstein   19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. Work-in-progress applies here. In order to get a list that is a bit more useful than its corresponding category, takes work. Why force all that work to be done all at once?  If someone does part of the work, it is there for somebody to come along and do a little more, and then someone else a little more.  That's called collaboration.  By deleting lists because they "aren't done yet", you are denying list builders the right to put in a little work here and a little work there, and you hamper their collaboration.  This is a wiki - the whole idea is for editors to build off of each others' efforts.  Under your method, we can't do that, because you expect the list creator to make it "a bit more useful than its corresponding category" from the very beginning.  That's dumb, man.   Half a list is better than none at all.  Stub guidelines apply to lists just as they apply to categories.  Besides, a lot of people navigate through articles (including lists) only, and don't rely on the categories much.  Me, for instance.  The Transhumanist  20:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * keep - but limit to only internal blue links --T-rex 16:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, and strong recommendation that nominator withdraw the nomination - What's going on here? Nominator appears to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's guideline on lists or with the guideline concerning the relationship between lists and categories.  This list of articles  (internal links) follows both of those guidelines, and is a healthy component of Wikipedia, adding to Wikipedia the value and benefits specified in those 2 guidelines - which are considerable.  Nominator is pushing categories over lists, and that is inappropriate.  Neither of these 2 navigation systems has precedence over the other, and the existence of a page in one is not an argument for the deletion of a page in the other.  AfD is not the place to conduct a categories vs. list debate, or to push a categories-over-lists agenda.  The proper place to propose changes to guidelines concerning the superiority or preference of one these page types over the other would be on the talk pages for those guidelines, plus posting a heads-up announcement at Village pump (policy).  Please stop trying to delete lists on the grounds that categories are better than lists or that category-only support for a subject is sufficient.  They are not.  Take it to the pump.  I highly recommend that the nominator review the relevant guidelines and withdraw this nomination.  The Transhumanist  19:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (e.c.) I'm quite aware of these (overly long) guidelines. I'm not attempting to make or change policy concerning lists vs. categories. I'm not opposed to lists as such, including lists that overlap with categories (see, e.g. my List of Aar bridges in Berne and Category:Bridges over the Aar). I'm opposed, however, to indiscriminate, web-directory-style, poorly conceived-of, poorly laid out, redundant collections of information.  Sandstein   19:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC) (Stylistic correction, Sandstein 19:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC))
 * How is the list indiscriminate? It is specifically a list of on-line encyclopedias. You can't get much more specific than that!  How does an alphabetical arrangement constitute poor layout?  And how is the list poorly conceived of?  If the subject is poorly conceived of for a list, how is the subject not poorly conceived for a category?  Per WP:CLN, redundancy between lists and categories isn't a valid argument for deletion.  The Transhumanist  20:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per some of the above. John254 19:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This list provides absolutely no information other than a directory list. Nothing. Therefore, it is redundant to the category, which organizes the information just as well as this list does. This list is superfluous, and should be deleted. seresin ( ¡? ) 19:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that is not true. A list of articles on Wikipedia is not considered a directory, rather it is a table of contents and/or index, and falls under Wikipedia's Contents system, which is a huge network of lists leading to articles on Wikipedia.  And redundancy between lists and categories is allowed and even encouraged in the 2 guidelines I posted above.  It is clear that you are either oblivious to those guidelines, or you are fighting them by attempting to enforce the opposite.  Either way, you are totally out of line.  AfD is not the place to push a category vs. list agenda.  Please stop.  The Transhumanist  19:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, this list contains entries for several encyclopedias for which we don't yet have articles, a feature not available in categories. John254 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * keep - These days, online encyclopedia is getting popular, so this list have a potential to compile more info and is useful to readers who seek such info at one glance. --Caspian blue (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One again, keep - I strongly agree with John254's point. A great feature of this is to allow the creation of redlinks to help improve the encyclopedia, which categories do not provide. I understand you concerns, but lists are useful organizational tools, and removing one with such an obvious narrow concept and a concept of notability at that, would only serve to the detriment of Wikipedia. Scapler (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Notice: the list has been expanded in content and formatting. It is now a table, with fields for language and a description.  It no longer fits the description provided in the nomination. The Transhumanist  21:41, 3 July 2008 (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.