Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sieges

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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of sieges

It is too difficult to draw a line between a siege and a battle. The Siege category already serves the purpose for organization of 'Sieges'. Read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles (alphabetical) for expert opinion. --Ineffable3000 04:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as nom. --Ineffable3000 04:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep are you also deleting the siege category? Siege seems well defined in the list, and in the article on sieges, and in the articles on individual sieges. Are you going to delete all the article with siege in their titles too? I am perplexed by this nomination too. Your saying the category is ok, but the list isn't, but using your rationale to only delete the list. I think you don't like lists philosophically and like categories and are using convoluted logic to justify your choice. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think that the list would be better for maintain such a great volume of information. Also, it is harder to confuse a siege and a battle when you add a category (because you usually read more of the article). --Ineffable3000 07:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry you lost me there ... wanna try again? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a reasonably informative list and quite maintainable as well. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Siege =/= battle. --- RockMFR 15:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There is certainly a difference (and a fairly clear-cut one, at that) between a siege and a battle, and the list is more informative than a category. Snurks^TC 18:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep due to chronological information, &c. — RJH (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unremarkable materials are notoriously easy to maintain. Xiner 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Useful sorting of sieges. Some are very notable. If a siege deserves an article, it deserves a place here. Edison 00:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Please stop nominating every military-related list for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 05:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Sieges are not battles. You need only read the definitions to understand the difference. The chronological listing of this history is much better suited to a list than to sort this alphabetically in a category. It's a very useful article, and there is no good reason to delete it, so I maintain strongly that it should be kept. -NorsemanII 06:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per issues raised above. I believe this chronological list of sieges is useful, informative and easy to maintain. --Grimhelm 13:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; categorising the material is much more sensible. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong keep - nominator seems to have a bias against lists, even well-crafted ones that are continuously improving. Categories and lists supplement each other. Getting rid of one in favor of the other is not a good idea. This list is structured in ways that a category cannot be, and it presents information about each entry, also something that categories cannot do. A great many seiges are officially referred to as "The Seige of ______". That right there differentiates them from events called "The Battle of ________". Differentiating titles is a useful navigation approach. I agree with Richard that the term "seige" is well defined.  The Transhumanist   12:48, 7 December 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.