Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child superhero

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 and rename. As it has already been renamed, the result is keep IronGargoyle 17:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Child superhero

Child superhero (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - while in many instances a category is not a substitution for an article, in this instance Category:Child superheroes is serving as a better and more comprehensive container than the list article. Otto4711 00:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - redundant w.r.t. pre-existing category. --Haemo 00:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A category is enough, the article itself hardly provides more information. --Nevhood 03:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to list of child superheroes... Balloonman 04:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Rename per Balloonman's suggestion. --Candy-Panda 05:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The description can be moved to the top of Category:Child superheroes, and any entries on the list which aren't in the category can have [[Category:Child superheroes]] added to them. There's very little point in doubling up on efforts to maintain both a list and a category. See also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• I've gone through the list and added all the entries to the category. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. In this case, a category works better than a list. The list does not provide anything more than an alphabetic set of entries, for which cats were made. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Rename per balloonmans suggestion. I dont buy the "category better than list" argument. Jcuk 16:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Rename and keep. Having a category is not a valid reason for deleting a list. Only the list has context to aid in finding what you are looking for. You have to click on every entry in a category to find the one you are looking for if you dont know the name, and only know the context. If you are going to cite: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, tell us which line in it gives you the authority to delete, just pointing us to an article is useless. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• How exactly would you locate an article based on context by using this list? If one is trying to find a child superhero that appeared on a particular show or in a particular comic book, is one likely to start with this list or is one likely to start with the name of the show or comic in which the character appears? And if one doesn't know what show or comic, wouldn't one have to click on every link anyway until one happens to stumble across it? Otto4711 19:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• One might just want to know more about child superheroes, in which case, one could (A) skim through this article and click on any number of links; or (B) click every single link in the category (assuming one finds it; I don't think many readers of WP are even aware of the existence of categories) until one's patience runs out with a slow-ish connection and one quits in disgust, frustrated that there is not a centralized article containing all the information. Just a scenario. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• But...but...but there is no centralized article that contains any information about childhood superheroes, except for noting that a handful of them exist, for which the category serves better by virtue of having dozens more entries in it. That rationale makes no sense. Otto4711 19:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, it contains a definition and details about the characters, such as which fictional work they are found in. This information is absent from the category. Granted, the article is in rather poor shape, but we should both consider articles as they are and as they may become. Even as it is, I think it ought to stay as it does not duplicate the category. I will see if I can improve the article by adding some other entries, but more importantly, improving what is already there. -- Black Falcon 22:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Rename, keep. Rename to right list name. In fact, I'll do it now. - Denny 17:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

odd, cachey stuff on my PC showed it not renamed, but it is now. Keep. - Denny 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, rename per all above, but also tag for cleanup. The list provides information that is absent in the category, so it qualifies per WP:LIST. -- Black Falcon 19:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Rename and Keep If it is made a category, it won't be too bad. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it's little more than a list, so it should be deleted as redundancy since the category serves the listing purpose. Wooyi 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep this list already provides more information than the category. Namely, the work the child superhero appeared in. This is something that cannot be accomplished via category. Deletion of this would remove valuable organization information from the corresponding category. —siroχo 00:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I have modified the list so that all the entries are now in a table that is sortable by name, work (in which the character appears), and age. Thus, the information presented is in a way which could not possibly be recreated in a category system without creating several dozen individual categories. Any suggetsions as to further improvements would be appreciated and I will do my best to accomodate them. -- Black Falcon 03:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The article has been renamed, and information has been added that can't be contained in a cat. Also per WP:LIST - information and navigation. - Peregrine Fisher 10:28, 8 March 2007 (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.