Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Stargate 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep.  Sandstein (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists of Stargate topics

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

This navigational list contains nothing that the two SG templates StargateNav) and Stargate Races or browsing Category:Stargate couldn't do as well. It had previously only been linked from one nav template (it still is), and hasn't been updated for mergers or deleted pages between August 2007 and April 2008, so I am not even sure how much it is/was used in the first place. Prod notice was removed. My deletion rationale would be "redundance with no added benefit". – sgeureka t•c 06:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum Nearly all of the non-cast non-episode links in this nav list also already appear in Aliens in Stargate as hatnotes. – sgeureka t•c 07:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: If consensus is to delete, please userfy the article at User:Celarnor\List of Stargate Topics. Celarnor Talk to me  07:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. List itself is non-notable and what it seems to be doing is better done by the appropriate category. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I am thinking now that this deletion proposal would have been more appropriate as an MfD, maybe... – sgeureka t•c 07:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Deletion rationale is inherently flawed.  I Suggest nominator view CLN guidelines, specifically the parts involving redundancy between categories, lists and navtemplates not being reasons for deletion.  There's nothing wrong with having it this way; some users, such as myself, hate the ugliness of categories and would prefer something similar to a regular article to help with navigation, such as a list.  Celarnor Talk to me  07:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It works much better than the category due to its organization. It appears to be very useful for navigation. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Celarnor. Also, the page provides a useful listing of topics that is not provided by the current templates.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per WP:CLN. Lists and categories complement each other. They aren't exclusive and should not be nominated for deletion because of overlap. -- neon white user page talk 20:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   —Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   —Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: article space is not for lists of this nature; navigation templates are preferred. - Chardish (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you point to this policy? Celarnor Talk to me  21:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Redundant article/list.  If you've navigated your way to this list, you already have passed a vast number of other methods of locating the articles listed here.  If this page did not exist, could readers still find their way around?  Yes, that's the entire basis of wikilinks.  This article is therefore redundant. Hiding T 21:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. You might have arrived here from our table of contents system, which is the main purpose of lists such as these.  Celarnor Talk to me  22:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep because it serves the purpose of linking all the smaller lists together in a manner that's easy to navigate. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther! &spades; / &diams; 02:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply to many: This list has only been accessible via a navigation template in the first place for the last few months, first StargateLists, now StargateNav (as far as I am aware of). There is no need to click on a list when the template already gives the same info. Doing otherwise would be like looking up a book's table of contents to learn where to find the table of contents. Redundant. Or no-one missed a page like this in the first place to make it more accessible from other places. – sgeureka t•c 07:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You make the fallacy of assuming that people look for information like this only via templates. Other people prefer using the categories navigation system, and still others prefer using the list system.  Each has its advantages and disadvantages, which makes them not completely redundant to one another, which is in turn why we have the "redundancy isn't a deletion rationale for categories, lists, and templates" bit in the CLN guidelines.  Celarnor Talk to me  07:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is, in order to find this list, a user would have to use a template and/or the category system first. And if they do they latter, there is no point in this list anymore. – sgeureka t•c 08:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I search for topics list by name; if I want the basic topics for law, I go directly to List of law topics; I don't muck around in categories because I think they're ugly as hell, and I don't like nav templates because that already requires I know enough about the topic to find a page with the navtemplate on it. This method doesn't require me to do either of those, which is one of the reasons I prefer topics list over the other two.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  14:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Or maybe this illustrates it even better: Per stats.grok.se, this list has so far been used 67 this month. Aliens in Stargate, which basically (but admittedly not fully) serves the same function but gives more context for each link, was visited 7083 times. The top level category path has been visited 294 times so far this month. The main nav templates are always accessible from almost every Stargate related article, and Stargate has been viewed 60846 times alone. So not only is this list redundant, it's also pretty much unused, or no-one at least really missed it for finding his way. – sgeureka t•c 08:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Really, I think the numbers are non-arguments. Per PERFORMANCE, it's not our place to worry about disk space or bandwidth, and that's really all that boils down to.  As this page is perfectly in line with the guidelines on stand-alone lists and the general guidelines for topics lists, the only things you've cited thus far as reasons for deletion that isn't outright against guidelines is that "few people use it", and I really don't think that's sufficient reason to delete anything, let alone serve as the sole deletion rationale.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  14:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keepjust as good as all the other lists of topics. This is one of the accepted types of navigational articles. Various ones have been proposed here from time to time,. and always kept. How large the usage is is totally irrelevant. that's not our standard of deletion. Paper encyclopedias cant afford to give the space to seldom used material, but that's paper. DGG (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, because the only real problem here is that not enough pages link to this topics list. The list itself is not at fault. The central Stargate articles ought to be linking to this topics list directly. The problem is the lack of links, not the article. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 15:02, 1 May 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.