Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of themed timelines

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 07:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of themed timelines

Delete There is little in this list that isn't being done by Category:Timelines and its subcategories. There are a few entries that link to timelines that are inside articles, but I also found quite a few links to sections that don't exist (and removed the links in that case). JeffW 23:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, redundant to Category:Timelines. Stifle (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is very useful because it's all on one page. Quite different from the categories and not at all redundant. Would possibly support deleting the categories though. -- JJay 01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe there are quite a few timelines in the category that aren't in the list. If they were added wouldn't the list become too long and need to broken up? Then it wouldn't all be on one page anymore. --JeffW 16:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Anyone can edit wikipedia so if there is something missing, by all means, add it to the list. It's your participation that will help this list expand over time. -- JJay 00:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You missed my point, which was that if all the timelines are added to the list that should be (it doesn't matter by whom) then the list will be too long to be one page anymore. Thus the argument that it is all on one page is a red herring. --JeffW 00:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

When it gets that long where it is almost complete then we can examine our options such as deletion. For the time being, considering it is all on one page and far from complete, deletion is obviously premature. Of course, it is also possible that many of our existing timeline pages would themselves be merged or deleted over time, thereby eliminating the risk that the list would ever achieve a length that would even suggest the need for deconsolidation. Not that this is intended in any way to disparage the often very real benefits derived from spinning-off articles and lists. Despite your well-meaning question that seems to view AfD as a discounting mechanism establishing a net present value for articles based on future editing flows, my personal timeline for forming an opinion on AfD only runs for five days. Put simply, I am uncomfortable with a capital sentence rendered for alleged future crimes. In the present case, now well beyond my timeline due to the quite unfortunate initial close, no crime has been committed so the judgement must be to acquit. -- JJay 02:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP. Little in the list?? I think this matter is resolved. Please remove the AfD tag Slicky 13:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The whole sentence is "There is little in this list that isn't being done by Category:Timelines and its subcategories." When you read the whole thing the meaning is different then when you pick out bits and pieces from it. --JeffW 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per JJay --myselfalso 02:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is the same as the Timeline category. Unmaintainable as is and would be much better suited being merged into the category as either pages or subcategories. Radagast83 05:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This can divide the lists by type of list, something which categories cannot yet do. As such, this is actually currently more useful than the category! Grutness...wha? 06:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean, what types of lists? A category can easily by subdivide by several different criteria, something a list cannot do without repeating entries. I know that there are several entries on the list in question that are repeated under two headings. --JeffW 13:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I usually deplore lists, but this is useful. Eusebeus 10:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Why do you usually deplore lists, and how is this one different? --JeffW 16:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep its not an article, it is a navigation help - and better than the Category which should link to this... Lundse 10:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • But a category is also a navigation help, so how is the list better than the category? --JeffW 16:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see absolutely no legitimate reason to delete this perfectly good, well establiahed article. I commend Aaron Brenneman, the original closer, for listing this very controversial deletion close for review, but I do strongly recommend that he seriously consider that he is permitting his own personal views on deletion to influence his closes. There was in the original discussion a strong consensus to keep, which he appears to have completely ignored. This is not the way to close a deletion discussion. --Tony Sidaway 13:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see any arguments here other than that the list is well established. Why does the age of the page matter? --JeffW 16:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • How on earth do you interpret 3 delete votes against 3 keep votes as a "strong consensus to keep"? — Haeleth Talk 14:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • How on earth was it originally closed as "delete"? -- JJay 14:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • If its 3 delete and 3 keep, it means that it did not reach any concensus (50% delete). A concensus of 75-80% (same as RFA) to have the article deleted. When it's no concensus, its automatically a keep. --Terence Ong 14:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Semantics. The original comment said "strong concensus to keep" and you yourself said that there was no concensus. --JeffW 16:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, good list. --Terence Ong 14:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's it? --JeffW 16:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, lists of lists/timelines are quite possibly the most pointless thing anyone could waste their time creating here on wikipedia. Now why isn't this a "No Consensus" result yet?--Isotope23 15:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I hope you will reconsider, bearing in mind that lists are not pointless when used as navigational tools. Lundse 17:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • And so is a category. Why do you think a list is a better navigational tool? --JeffW 18:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Exactly... this should be a category.--Isotope23 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I just compared them, the list is easier to navigate from, the category seems a mess. I am no expert, but unless the category can be made as easy to use as the list, it seem something useful is lost if we delete it. Lundse 09:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. An immensely-helpful resource for researchers, as many articles aren't categorized appropriately and many users don't browse category pages. Policy isn't an end in itself, but an means to an end. If you guys aren't sure what deleting the list will accomplish, then why vote to delete it? I'm sure someone will just ignore all of us and delete it anyway, though.--Primetime 19:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a perfectly valid, verifiable, and useful list. Lists can do many things that categories cannot: they can have redlinks to help direct people to articles that need creating; they can be sorted and organized in arbitrary ways; they can be annotated. Finally, they can eventually strive to be made into a featured list. Turnstep 23:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, lists can do many of those things, but it has been around for years and no one has put in the effort to have it do any of those things. If no one is willing to put the effort into the list, maybe the list isn't worth the effort? --JeffW 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't consider than an issue. Just because a page has not reached its full potential is no reason to delete it. Turnstep 00:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Has use beyond basic category. StuffOfInterest 18:41, 25 April 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.