Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of search engines

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The result was (not-so) speedy keep due to withdrawn nomination, with no arguments for deletion. --Coredesat 07:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of search engines

This article can never be more than a directory, Wikipedia is not a collection of directories. I retract my support for this deletion per WP:SNOW. HighInBC 21:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as each entry on this page has a wikipedia article, in fact, that's a requirement to the list. It's also formatted by type, so it's not redundant to the Search Engines Category. Mister.Manticore 21:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NOT:

Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages.

This just does not seem encyclopedic to me. HighInBC 21:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you make your argument without quoting from policy pages? Really, most of what you said, I don't even see the relationship to this list anyway. You might as well be arguing we shouldn't have list of cars or list of dog breeds. This is an organized list of material that's already in Wikipedia, and I don't see how it's any different from any other list. Mister.Manticore 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made all the point I want to, I don't think lists are encyclopedic. I was under the impression that this was commonly accepted. However if this is not consensus I will not fight it. HighInBC 01:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, lists are very much an important part of any encyclopedia, be it US presidents, English Monarchs or Battles in WW2, as they are helpful ways to organize valuable information. Yes, it is certainly possible to come up with worthless lists like List of red-headed stepchildren or list of people who have slept in the Lincoln Bedroom, but this is not clearly one of them. The search engine article is useful, there's no arguing with that. Having information on notable search engines is also useful. Therefore, a list of those search engine is hardly not encyclopedic on its face. In fact, I think it's something that is useful to Wikipedia, as merely having information without the organization to access it effectively is hardly desirable. That is perhaps the most persuasive argument in keeping lists, at least to me. Obviously, YMMV, but I do think you chose poorly in nominating this article. Mister.Manticore 01:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I've helped patrol this page, and while it is somewhat redundant with the related Category, I think its organization is useful. There also is some precedent for having structured lists similar to their categories: List of operating systems, List of automobile manufacturers, or List of comic books, just to name a few. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think it adds to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Benn Newman 22:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Policy above of not creating a list is meant to avoid excessive listings, stupid ones (e.g., "people who carry swords, I saw once"), or fancruft. But this is legit. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well maintained and categorized list. per everyone above --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 22:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Query What can this page do that sub-categories cannot? Benn Newman 22:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Put everything on one page, for example, or add annotations/footnotes if it were desired. For example, the list could add date of founding. Mister.Manticore 22:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep WP is not a list, means WP is not merely a list.

There are many hundred lists in WP, some with annotation, it can serve as a very useful index to the material. People use lists as finding aids: "I'm not sure what its called exactly, but if I can look at a list I'll pick it out"

A list is effective because it focuses subjects. This can be done in a more complicated way with categories, but this may be overkill for this subject.

There is a more important problem, which is why I stopped-- I do not think it is clear what a search engine is.
For additional comments on this point, see the talk page for the article. DGG 03:38, 18 October 2006 (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.