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. Randykitty ( talk) 17:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Outline of Jammu and Kashmir

Outline of Jammu and Kashmir (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Umm.......What's this exactly? We use templates for these stuff; not main-space articles. ∯WBG ^converse 17:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete another version of portal spam. A big collection of links without the usefulness of articeltext around them for context. Legacypac ( talk) 17:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 17:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Already coved under Jammu and Kashmir. We do not need a synopsis of the main article or as we say here in the United States a CliffsNotes version to summarize. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 17:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete I don't get the point of most outlines, it's just the article with everything but the blue links stripped out with no additional use to the reader. This is a specific enough topic that a separate outline is unnecessary, which should generally be for larger, more abstract topics. From the same portalspammer. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Another useless pile of junk created by everyone's favourite topic-banned spammer The Transhumanist. Reywas92 is correct - outlines are just glorified linkfarms that nobody uses. CoolSkittle ( talk) 18:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SD0001 ( talk) 09:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep As a top-level admininstrative (and cultural) division of a large country, this is not too specific to not have an outline on. Each of the other 28 Indian states have outlines, so do each of the 51 US states, for that matter. Deleting just this one would be quite odd and breaks the consistency of things.

I am not a fan of The Transhumanist's mass creations, but this is clearly a well-done hand-curated outline, and indeed provides a good bird's eye of the subject as outlines are supposed to do. I don't see any valid argument here for deletion other than "I don't like outlines" or "this is created by that portal spammer". If you don't think states should have outlines, start an RFC or a mass AFD on the issue, one-off deletion of a single one helps no one. SD0001 ( talk) 09:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

I'll note that virtually all of the Indian state outlines were created or mostly written by him, so the fact they all exist is hardly an excuse to keep this one when none are really that notable or useful. I can hardly cite Wikipedia:Outlines being entirely written him too...looking at the archives there's a lot of concern about both outlines and TTH's single-handed creation of the system. I'm sure you know perfectly well that mass AFDs tend to be rejected over nuance of individual articles so a test case tends to be good place to start. Reywas92 ^Talk 19:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Omg he wrote literally all of the US state outlines too. There's no reason for the links on these pages not to simply be on the main article already, these just strip them of context. Reywas92 ^Talk 19:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

"write" is a generous word to use here for a link farm. There are over 700 more outline drafts he has started and continues to pick away at. I watch his talkpage and will support any deletion of any useless outline anyone nominates for deletion. Legacypac ( talk) 19:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

It is not that generous of a word when you consider the fact that creating an outline requires carefully listing links under meaningful section headers, certainly more difficult work than simply nominating pages for deletion, in which you specialise. SD0001 ( talk) 20:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC) reply

I do a lot of page curation. I might be one of the most knowledgable editors in this vital area of maintenance. For example User:Legacypac/CSD_log shows some of my work. Legacypac ( talk) 21:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep at the very least procedurally, though I'm happy with keeping it on normal grounds. Encyclopedias do typically tend to have outlines or indexes, and this serves its purpose in that regard. I would suggest bringing this to the community's attention at a wider level and go from there, but nominating one for deletion would just create an inconsistency. SportingFlyer T· C 04:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply

there was a big pushback on the mass creation of outlines a few years ago. Being forced to stop outlines was what got TTH into portals. The cleanup was never completed but people keep chipping away at it as the come across these pages. Legacypac ( talk) 08:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply

How do you come up with this nonsense? I was never forced to stop working on outlines. I switched over to portals because you and others were trying to delete them all.    — The Transhumanist   03:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC) reply

And you don't think that there's a reason for people trying to stop you from adding to the bloat? puggo ( talk) 16:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep – we should have an outline on each major geographical region, as Wikipedia's regional coverage is extensive. The outline will grow as Wikipedia's coverage of this subject grows.    — The Transhumanist   03:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Bogus deletion "rationale" (just a variant of WP:IDONTKNOWIT). This is a perfectly normal WP:OUTLINE article, a navigational list page that is very useful (far easier to use that our category system, which is primarily of service to editors not readers). And, no, we could not put all this in a navbox template. They are never, ever this long, and they have tight inclusion criteria for what my be in them. PS: The opposers using this and other such AfDs and MfDs to engage in ad hominem, aspersion-casting nastiness just because of who the page-creator was are just laying the groundwork for their own ArbCom examination. It's getting really, really tedious to run into this kind of childish, uncivil hostility every time I look at an XfD process. It's unseemly, non-collegial, un-wiki, and not permissible.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep without prejudice to a discussion of outlines in general. I don't care much for outlines (or portals for that matter) and wouldn't miss them if they went, nor am I a big fan of TTH's mass creations. Having said that, I think this is not the place to discuss outlines as a whole. Furthermore, the arguments for deletion seem to be a bit WP:PUNISH-y and ad hominem IMO, and this is actually not too terribly bad of an outline, and J&K is not too obscure for an outline. It's not the greatest, but there are certainly worse outlines and portals. – John M Wolfson ( talk) 20:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep without prejudice to a discussion of outlines in general, per John M Wolfson. I think that there is a useful discussion to be had about whether outlines are worth keeping, but that should be discussed as a matter of general principle in relation to all outlines, rather than by picking off individual, unexceptional example.

Note that my personal view is current that:

1. Outlines are probably of at best marginal utility, and I lean towards deleting the lot, but want to hear the broad arguments on both sides
2. @ The Transhumanist appears to have created many hundreds of these outlines over many years. There is clearly a long-term pattern of disruptiveness which includes: mass-creating meta-content; doing so without either first establishing a clear consensus in favour of this type of page, or even seeking consensus when challenged; doing nothing to assist in the cleanup; unilaterally rewriting guidelines to suit his own preferences. It seems to me that the current short-term topic ban on TTH mass-creating portals is woefully inadequate. We need much wider and more long-term restraint on this editor's ability to wreak havoc.

-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The outline is redundant as the article is already succinct and fairly divvied. This is simply a part of TTH's edit farming. puggo ( talk) 16:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete The main article has an infobox and table of contents, both of which provide convenient access to information. This seperate article is confusing and unnecessary.-- Pontificalibus 17:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• This argument would apply to every outline we have (or at least to all valid outlines). Outlines are created for significant topics, and the main articles for these topics would always have an infobox and toc. SD0001 ( talk) 13:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Maybe if someone nominates the others I will use the same argument. The outlines I have seen seem to be duplications of existing content and don’t improve access to information, but rather cause confusion by the existence of a separate article with a tendency to have a particular editorial slant on what is considered important.-- Pontificalibus 20:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep per SD0001. Also, Outline of Jammu and Kashmir is a tad bit more controversial than other Indian states due to two other countries (China and Pakistan) administering regions that India has claimed is entirely hers. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 19:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Outlines like this one are unencyclopedic. This merely reproduces content in the main article. Arguing that other outlines exist is pure WP:WAX. FOARP ( talk) 21:06, 26 April 2019 (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.