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 speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other recommendations that the page be deleted. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
07:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. Perfectly good list that is in no way made redundant by the existence of a category, but clarification of criteria as mentioned above would help. --
Michig (
talk)
08:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Snow keep per above. Please don't waste our time in the future with deletion nominations that don't address prior deletion results or relevant guidelines. The whole discussion in the prior AFD was about the complementary function of lists and categories per
WP:CLN, on which basis the list was kept by overwhelming consensus. It would be one thing to expressly disagree with that result and give reasons why we should come to a different outcome notwithstanding the very clear guideline language, but you've failed to even show awareness of either the guideline or the content of the prior AFD while raising an argument it rebutted and rejected five years ago. postdlf (talk)
16:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)reply
I did assume good faith; I assumed your failure to do your due diligence was not willful obfuscation but was done innocently. And as you admit that you didn't see the prior discussion (despite posting a "3rd nomination", and despite the template displaying quite clearly once the discussion was posted), we don't have a disagreement of fact here that your nomination was made in innocent ignorance of relevant discussion and guidelines. You can now display your good faith by withdrawing your nomination so as to not waste further time on it, if you would not have made it had you been aware of the previous AFD and CLN. Or you can justify it by explaining why there should now be a different result notwithstanding those considerations if you persist in thinking deletion is appropriate even after seeing the counterarguments. postdlf (talk)
13:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided."
NorthAmerica100016:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)reply
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.