Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Angolan banks

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 of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Angolan banks

Another pointless list article which doesn't list any article whatsoever. Mecanismo | Talk 18:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, like List of banks in Canada. Let's not inflict more systemic bias than necessary. Kappa 18:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't believe it can be considered systemic bias. I pointed out a list article without a single valid entry. I wouldn't matter if it was about angolan banks or US banks because the article is still junk. On top of that, categories are better suited than simple articles for this particular purpose, which is another reason to delete this entry --Mecanismo | Talk 19:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• What is invalid about the banks listed? And this list gives alternate names and explains ownership, so is useful in a way that a category can never be. Kappa 19:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• There is nothing invalid about the actual banks. The article entries are what is invalid. The links point to articles which don't exist. What's the point of creating a list that links to nothing? Moreover, categories are better suited for the purpose this article aims to achieve. --Mecanismo | Talk 20:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• The list gives users examples of notable banks in Angola, and the redlinks encourage them to write articles about them. Also they will automatically turn blue if/when articles are created. I can't see how a plain automatically-generated list would be more useful than this annotated one. Kappa 20:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• If the articles are created, it is too easy to add the stubs into a Banks of Angola category. With that the user is automatically creating a automatically maintained list, which can't be achieve with a simple article. I'll start the stubs and insert them into the category to demonstrate what I'm talking about --Mecanismo | Talk 22:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I've just created 4 stub articles on the banks and inserted them into the "Banks of Angola" category. That makes this list article completely redundant, which in turn justifies a deletion even more --Mecanismo | Talk 22:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The list is not redundant because the category does not give the abbreviations used, ownership details or other important notes. Also I think it would have been much harder to create those stubs if the list hadn't been there. Note that an anon could add a new item to the list but wouldn't be able to create a stub. Kappa 22:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Abbreviations are perfectly redundant because the banks' names are right there in the article's name. --Mecanismo | Talk 22:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent w/Candadian banks, but clean up and expand pronto.Gateman1997 19:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per precedent with the Canadian banks. Carioca 19:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per comments above. Angola is just as important as Canada a country in Africa with banks. -- JJay 20:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• And where in fact does anyone state that they aren't? Please try to read the AFD comment and the discussion. It doesn't do the debate any good if a voter not only doesn't read the article and the discussion but he also keeps misunderstanding and missing the point entirely. --Mecanismo | Talk 20:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Is this a pointless list article which doesn't list any article whatsoever? As I did not devote the time necessary to deconstruct the philosophical underpinnings of your argument, I will switch to Abstain and withdraw from this debate for now. I reserve the right to return to keep, when I finish reading the discussion from all the keep voters on this page. I also promise to read any comments from delete voters, should they make themselves known-- JJay 00:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 21:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Redlinked lists do gradually become populated - it won't happen overnight, but it will happen. Humansdorpie 21:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Red links on a list can be useful for drawing attention to articles which need to be written. Rhion 21:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• If the articles really need to be written, then a properly stubbed article does more to advance it than a red link. It is extremely easy to create a properly stubbed article and it is even easier to include it in the right category. Then, if someone adds a category:whatever to the stubbed article, that user is also creating/expanding a list which is kept automatically and doesn't need any maintenance. So, a list article with red links not only doesn't facilitate the creation of new content but it also, compared with category pages, needs a lot more care and maintenance than a category page. Therefore, the list articles which are made redundant by category pages should be deleted in favour of the category pages, which is exactly this case and that is why the AFD should be deleted. --Mecanismo | Talk 00:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per Canadian banks. I thought red links were supposed to be seen as an invitation to create an article btw. Jcuk 22:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• They aren't. It can be seen as a manifestation of the editor's lazyness because it is extremelly easy and even trivial to create and stub an article. To make matters worse, sometimes a red link is created eventhough the article already exists.--Mecanismo | Talk 22:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That isn't nice. All contributions are good unless they are vandalism or biased. Golfcam 03:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia disagrees with you Mecanismo "Links to non-existing pages are common. They are typically created in preparation of creating the page, and/or to encourage other people to do so." Based on that and the Canadian Banks precedent, I change my vote to STRONG Keep Jcuk 08:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per Canadian banks. Golfcam 03:10, 22 December 2005 (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.