- 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 delete. Sandstein 10:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Index of Romania-related articles ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Index articles make sense only if they're reasonably complete or else if they provide navigation between a carefully curated group of important articles. This is not complete – it lists under 200 articles, which is two orders of magnitude smaller than the over 20,000 tracked by WikiProject Romania. It's not selective either – it has entries for random railway stations but doesn't link to major articles like Parliament of Romania or Early Modern Romania. And there's no scope for the article to be expanded in either direction – Outline of Romania already covers one, while the other is not viable – we don't have a process for generating comprehensive index articles and we don't need one anyway, as readers nowadays can't be expected to navigate to topics of interest by browsing alphabetic lists containing thousands upon thousands of entries. – Uanfala (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. The recently AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of India-related articles resulted in a delete and many editors, myself included, agreed it should be extended to all other Index of ... articles in the same category. They're indiscriminate and offer little navigational compared to categories and lists that we already utilise. Ajf773 ( talk) 01:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment It’s interesting that the rationale here is the opposite of the one that was offered for the Index of India-related articles. There, it as argued that the list was too big and unwieldy to be useful; here the rationale is that it’s not comprehensive enough to be useful. I know some people don’t like these country list articles. Personally I hate the structured ‘Outline’ articles. If we’re going to start purging country list articles I think that ought to be done with an RfC, not by bringing individual articles here. Mccapra ( talk) 02:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per my comment there that indices like this serve no purpose in a online encyclopedia that is ever-changing, uses categories, and has a search box that doesn't require you to find a page number in an alphabetical listing. The India list was not called either too big or unwieldy but like this one not even big enough and lacked major topics and is unmaintained. An RFC for a bulk deletion would be welcome, but test cases like this are often needed to show it's worth starting one. Reywas92 Talk 04:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per above comments. DexDor (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment/Query I was going to close this, but bluntly I was unsure of whether there was policy warranted based deletion, and then started having a viewpoint so thought I'd participate instead. Is this being deleted under NLIST, or because it doesn't/couldn't have a sufficiently delineated scope? Arguments that it's not of much use seem more variants of IDONTLIKEIT. While I somewhat concede @
Reywas92:'s argument for test cases, those need fairly firm policy justifications. I would firmly hope that we wouldn't get another one in this vein without an RfC. Fixing ping
Nosebagbear (
talk) 11:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Your ping probably didn't work:
mentions can be counter-intuitive at times. I'll leave the policy exegesis to those more familiar than me, but I would just like to point out that
WP:LISTN isn't a policy. –
Uanfala (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hadn't meant to indicate it was, apologies if confusion - I put both mentions of "policy" in different sentences to LISTN as a more general usage (there's other potential possibilities than LISTN etc). Nosebagbear ( talk) 15:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- The reason for deletion is that the page does more harm than good. That wouldn't normally be a deletion rationale for an article, but pages like this are not really articles (e.g. they don't follow the WP:SELFREF rules). If indexes are for editors (rather than for readers) then we should assess deletion more like at MFD (i.e. for pages in the Wikipedia namespace) than for a normal (i.e. article) AFD. DexDor (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Your ping probably didn't work:
mentions can be counter-intuitive at times. I'll leave the policy exegesis to those more familiar than me, but I would just like to point out that
WP:LISTN isn't a policy. –
Uanfala (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2020 (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.