Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of preprint repositories


 * 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. Consensus that this is a valid list - partially by belief that it's not falling afoul of policy and partly by IAR reasoning. There is a request that any editor with an interest trims out the non-notable ones Nosebagbear (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

List of preprint repositories

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The insistence that this mostly-unsourced list of mostly non-notable websites include external links for each entry is a clear violation of WP:NOTDIR ElKevbo (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * To be clear, is your rationale for deletion WP:NOTDIR? It sounds like you're just making an objection to external links/the present condition of the page, which is outside the scope of AfD unless you're suggesting WP:TNT. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question. It doesn't appear that editors who maintain the article will allow it to be significantly changed so deletion appears to be the only option. I would love to be proven wrong; if editors will allow it, it is feasible that a much more focused list article with clear inclusion criteria, consistent sourcing, and adherence to policies such as WP:NOTDIR could be carved out the existing list or created anew. ElKevbo (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * will allow it I don't see where anyone has tried? The talk page is almost empty. This seems premature. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

To further drive the point home, WP:NOTDIR lists 7 examples. None of WP:NOTDIR applies. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lists such as this are off-mission for the encyclopedia. We're not a web directory. Per WP:DEL-REASON point #14 that is a valid reason for deletion and within the scope of Afd. - MrOllie (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep this list is obviously useful and of great encyclopedic value. This is no different than a List of health and fitness magazines. And if there's a policy against this, it's a stupid policy, and should be ignored, per policy. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).
 * This is clearly not the case here. We have a list containing closely related entities with a well-defined scope related to an encyclopedic topic: preprint repositories.
 * 1) Genealogical entries.
 * This is clearly not the case here.
 * 1) The white or yellow pages. Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses is not encyclopedic.
 * This is clearly not the case here.
 * 1) Directories, directory entries, electronic program guides, or resources for conducting business.
 * This is clearly not the case here.
 * 1) Sales catalogues
 * This is clearly not the case here.
 * 1) Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y".
 * This is clearly not the case here.
 * 1) Simple listings without context information showing encyclopedic merit.
 * This is clearly not the case here. We have information presented in context.
 * The only issue I see with the list, as compared to the likes of the magazines list, is that it's indiscriminate. Or, I should say, it seeks to be exhaustive. It's pretty rare that Wikipedia should have lists that try to be exhaustive, including all extant members regardless of sourcing/notability. e.g. WP:CSC. A list of websites is certainly the sort that should be limited to notable examples rather than become a link farm for absolutely everything that exists. ...but these are editing decisions rather than reasons for deletion. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep list, don't link to all of them. The ones with articles, they should contain an external link in that article if it is compliant with WP:ELYES. The ones without, we don't need to include a link in a list article. A list article is supposed to be a list - not a directory. But the list should not be deleted - just the directory (i.e. web links) part of it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no policy-based reason to remove the links, having external links doesn't suddenly turn a list into a directory. See WP:ELLIST.&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ELLIST is inconclusive - it says that lists should not be embedded with links in them, but it also says appropriate external links can be displayed compactly within. Regardless, I agree with Rhododendrites that is an editing concern, not a reason for deletion, and will watch that talk page for any discussion in which I can provide that input. Still, keep the list as the list is obviously appropriate for Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:ELLIST says you shouldn't have a list where the items themselves are externally links, like or
 * John (1925–1950)
 * Mary (1982–)
 * Paul (1806–1901)

It has no issues at all with external links in their own columns (see the 2nd table in WP:ELLIST), which serve a dual purpose of being "as both official links and as inline citations to primary sources", like there is in this article. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep 25 of them have links to their own articles. Valid grouping for a list article.   D r e a m Focus  02:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The 'Name' and 'Link' columns avoid mixing wikilinks and external links. Though, to be honest, I'd prefer to see it dynamically generated by user:ListeriaBot some day, since the information in lists such as is sufficiently structured. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 03:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The list is interesting and quite informative.ChrisCalif (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanse. Remove all the non notable list entries and all the external links to make this look more like a list and less like a directory. Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Headbomb. Vaticidalprophet 02:58, 10 June 2021 (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.