Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oral health and dental 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. -- VS talk 06:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

List of oral health and dental topics

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An alphabetical list - not encyclopaedic. Snowman (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The list was created according to the list guideline, which states "The most basic form of organization is alphabetical". Now, how did you come to the conclusion that alphabetized lists were not encyclopedic? In the future, please read the relevant policies and guidelines  before nominating a page for deletion.  Thank you.    Th e Tr ans hu man ist    05:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Convert to category: I think that a structured category would be better than this unsourced list of 837 items. The best lists are structured and referenced, for example, see the the "List of California birds" article. Any unsourced wiki page is a potential target for deletion. Snowman (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This index is very useful for tracking dental coverage on Wikipedia via "Related changes", as well as for monitoring the subject for vandalism and inappropriate edits. (In the category system you'd have to repeat the operation on each subcategory, which is much more cumbersome).  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    13:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not the only way of watching pages, and it will not find new pages like a category list will. Snowman (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to compete with categories in order to qualify to exist. Lists and categories are synergistic.  WP:CLS  states: These methods should not be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others.  For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia. See the navigation menu at the top of Contents, and see Category:Categories.  Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away.  Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system - doing so wastes valuable resources.  Instead, each should be used to update the other.


 * Snowman, please explain how your actions and arguments are not in direct contradiction to WP:CLS.    Th e Tr ans hu man ist    19:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * When I found this mixed list of 837 linked pages of dental health related topics and biographies, it was uncategorised, it had no stub tag, it did not have any links from article pages, it had no references. I found it because I was checking links going to a page, perhaps one of the pages on the list that I had started. It was invisible to most wiki users, who might have wanted to see the page or watch changes of the linked pages. It can be deleted merely because it still does not have any references. I saw grounds for it to be deleted, and perhaps I should have given more than one reason for deletion at the outset. I note that the page has been amended, and, if it had references (perhaps listing of 2 or 3 dental and oral health text books in a reference section), this problem will have been partly addressed. WP:CLS does accept lists, although it favours structured lists, and I do not want to compete over list formats, but a page without references is not defensible on the wiki. "List of California birds" is a featured list, and it has references and subheadings. (Lists). Snowman (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge with category This seems exactly what a category is for. Pharmboy (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lists may serve the same purpose as categories (navigation), and shouldn't be dismantled in favor of categories. This is covered in the guideline WP:CLS, which states: When developers of these redundant systems compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted simply because they overlap, they are doing Wikipedia a disservice. First, editors defend their systems of choice vigorously, so forcing confrontations between them in deletion discussions wastes the time and effort of contributors who would be better utilized by allowing them to develop their respective systems. Second, these pages often have links that their counterparts do not have - simply deleting such pages wastes those links. Third, deleting list pages just because they are redundant to categories may disrupt browsing by users who prefer the list system - this is a form of instability. Fourth, lists may be enhanced with features not available to categories, but building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list -- deleting link lists is a pointless waste of these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Any unreferenced list is a target for deletion; see Lists. Snowman (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per Pharmboy. GregorB (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below. GregorB (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, how is a page merged with a category, two different sorts of pages. Snowman (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By tagging each of the pages linked to on the list with category tags. See Category.  I think you should become more familiar with Wikipedia's operations and policies and guidelines before nominating any more articles for deletion.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    06:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I know about categories and so I think that you are being too presumptive. I would have called that converted to a Category and not merging with a category, especially as there is no category called "Category:Oral health and dental topics" or "Category:Oral Health" at the present time to merge it with, and the list itself is not categorised. A category could be more structured that this mixed unsourced list of 837 items. Snowman (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't being presumptive. Your question displayed a lack of familiarity with a basic operation.  And whether or not a category can be more structured, isn't a good reason for deletion according to WP:CLS, which you also seem to be unfamiliar with (otherwise you wouldn't be posing a category against a list), and which you continually fail to address. Concerning structure, it's much faster to read this list than to browse all these topics in the category system, and for people desiring to survey the whole subject this list is therefore more valuable to them for that purpose.  Lists are useful in ways that categories are not.  Which is one reason that WP:CLS states that one should not be deleted in favor of the other.  Note also that categories aren't sourced either, and in practice index pages on Wikipedia generally aren't challenged for not being sourced, because includability is either obvious or easily verified by clicking on and reading an entry.  It's common sense for a navigation aid like this.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    15:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I repeat, I know about categories. I have worked on categories. I have made new categories. I have added to categories. I know about lists. I have worked on lists. I have added to lists. Snowman (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why are you initiating a category vs. list conflict? All the reasons why categories and lists should not be used as the basis for getting rid of their counterparts are covered in WP:CLS.  The reason you initially gave for the nom was "An alphabetical list - not encyclopaedic".  Alphabetized lists are defined as encyclopedic in WP:STAND.  This suggests that you haven't read Wikipedia's guidelines concerning lists.  The purpose of deletion discussions is to determine whether or not pages should be deleted according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  The reason you gave in your nom, and most of the arguments you've presented above either directly contradict or ignore Wikipedia's guidelines on lists.  This AfD discussion should never have been started in the first place.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, this is an older method of Wikipedia organization that still has thousands of articles. I can see an argument that they are obsolete or that they should be better organized, but these "list of X topics" articles have some longstanding precedent. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, they aren't obsolete, on the contrary, lists are superior to categories in many ways, which is covered in WP:CLS; they can even be developed to featured status, unlike categories. The list system is under continuous further development.  For more information, see WP:LISTS and Lists (stand-alone lists).   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Currently the list has not got one reference, and to talk of a featured status is rather theoretical at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - the nomination and reasons given above for removing the list go completely against Wikipedia's list-related guidelines. See WP:CLS.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Any unreferenced text is a target for deletion, and this specifically applies to lists as well; see Lists. Snowman (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And that applies to 95% of pages on Wikipedia, which begs the question "why target a list that is primarily a navigation aid?" If any entry on the list is in error, please feel free to remove it. But, you're nomination didn't present that as a reason, and most of the rest of your arguments are of the category vs. list type, which suggests that you have a bias for categories and against lists that share the purpose of categories (navigation).  Tables of contents and indexes are one of Wikipedia's main navigation systems.  Please stop trying to dismantle it.  There are many indexes on Wikipedia, and none of them are sourced.  See List of mathematics articles, List of economics topics, List of geography topics, List of biology topics, List of ecology topics, List of anatomical topics, List of topics in logic, List of trigonometry topics, List of statistical topics, List of psychology topics, List of politics topics, List of legal topics, List of education topics, to name a few.  There are dozens, possibly hundreds more.  They are all navigation aids.  Are you going to nominate those for deletion too?   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see wp:WAX in the "Arguments to avoid" essay. Pharmboy (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I presented those links to show the common practice as applied to index pages. And common practice is relevant here, as the underlying issue is whether or not the list-based navigation system should be dismantled, either all-at-once or one-page-at-a-time. If it's going to be deleted, then there's no sense in working on it or expanding it.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist  21:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Categorize. Per above.  Malinaccier (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep and Merge with Category. After re-reading WP:CLS, I see that both the article and category can be used together to a better effect than keeping only one of them.  Thanks TTH.  Malinaccier (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge per WP:CLS Guidelines explicitly state the difference between CATs and Lists. -- Shark face  217  02:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:CLS and thanks to User:The Transhumanist for his guidance. 62.244.185.135 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 10:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't mean to be harsh, but this AFD is turning into an essay by The Transhumanist. I think we know how you feel about this article you created at this point.  Pharmboy (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -  :)   My feelings are irrelevant. It's the reasons that matter. Are the points I presented relevant and valid? If not, please show how they are not. Th e Tr ans hu man ist    20:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have a horse in the race, but I do read WP:CLS a bit differently than you, as do others. This is ok.  My concern is that you are taking this personally and claiming ownership of the article.  Over 50% of the commenting in this AFD is yours, flooding out other opinions.  Debate every single point of everyone who disagrees with you seems inappropriate in an AFD:  State your case, quote your policy and reply to one or two comments, fine.  My concern isn't about this page, it is about the methods being used, to bludgen the AFD itself with the shear volume of "words".  As to the flaws in your logic, I have already pointed out wp:wax and others apply, but pointing them out will only generate several paragraphs of monolog and isn't conducive to resolving the issue at hand.  In short, I think your methods are undermining the AFD process.  I accept you are doing this in good faith, but it isn't good practice.  Pharmboy (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're changing the subject via ad hominem, and that's inappropriate. Concerning article ownership, you should assume good faith, refrain from reading things in to another's actions, and practice good sportsmanship.  My record shows that I gladly collaborate with others on articles -- I even go out of my way to invite others to help, posting requests for help on various WikiProjects and request boards.  While I don't take this debate personally, I do consider it important -- a great deal of list development effort has been wasted by good lists being deleted, and anything I can do to reduce that I do gladly.  I believe that presenting the relevant facts and considerations allows others to weigh the evidence and reasons to make a better decision.  The reasons posted here may become the basis for an essay, to reduce the need for repeating them in the future.  Concerning the facts and reasons, there is no quota on who these should come from -- but they need to be presented by someone.  And the logic works, even it runs counter to the essays you have presented to support your position.  I'm sorry that the outcome isn't going your way, but attempting to quiet the opposition is a dubious approach.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    01:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain. While the selection of "topics" still appears a bit haphazard, with biographies thrown in - hey, let's give WP:CLS a chance. However: the article's formatting has since changed. With this formatting, it's not going to be enhanced to anything more than a collection of links - which could also be fine, but I don't see the need to keep it. GregorB (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (withdrawn)
 * Converting back and forth from the bulleted format only takes a minute or two, so enhancement in various ways is always an option. Speaking of enhancements, the list currently contains one section-link, and will likely have more added over time.  Concerning need, I set up the list to be able to access all dental pages from a single place, for ease of browsing/studying the subject and to make working on them easier.  As I work on those articles, I'll be sure to refine this list.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    21:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, in that case. Good enough for me. GregorB (talk) 10:13, 4 January 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.