Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikh pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 23:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sikh pages

  • This page appears to be an uncompleted list, in a misguided manual attempt to create a Wikipedia category. As all the pages listed are already part of Category:Sikhism, the page is completely redundant. No potential to become encyclopedic. No-one has defended it on its talk page. I say delete. -- FP 02:49, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC) Given DialUp's extensive expansion of the page, I no longer see a need to delete it. However a rename to list of Sikhism-related topics is still warranted. Thanks, DialUp! -- FP 08:18, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to list of Sikhism-related topics and keep. Lists of X-related topics are useful to editors familiar with the subject in question as they show which articles have yet to be written. -Sean Curtin 05:32, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
In this case, I disagree. EVERY page on the list is in also in Category:Sikhism, and there are now no unwritten articles on the list. Hence, there is little rationale for the page to exist. -- FP 08:26, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant/duplicate page. Megan1967 07:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, completely unneccesary. Fawcett5 08:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as obsolete, according to Wikipedia:Lists a list should not be redundant with a category. Radiant! 13:30, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename per Sean Curtin. I took the liberty of adding several topics needing articles (With my limited knowledge of Sikhism I may not have quite the accepted spelling or description). It's good to see that Related changes for Category is finally working. DialUp 16:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • NOTE: Almost every Sikhism article has red-links that could be listed here—if this page survives vfd, I may copy them to this list. DialUp 17:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Why wait to do something I'll forget? I've copied or linked to most of the red-links. DialUp 21:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant with the sihkism category. DaveTheRed 20:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • An annotated list may be valuable and not redundant with the cat; this isn't really - David Gerard 00:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This list shouldn't be deleted. I've been working it—even creating Category:Sikhism-related stubs violating the 100 stub rule—but even when I get done there will be many items left. Whoever went through the list creating stubs out of the red-links did no service. There must be thousands of stubs in the Stub category. I can't believe anyone really thinks that categories can replace a list when organizing and editing articles across such a broad topic such as Sikhism. DialUp 07:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • if that is really the case, it should be reorganized as a WikiProject. Fawcett5 07:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you want to take it on? I'm out of my league with the little I know about Sikhism. DialUp 07:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note to administrators: After quite a bit or work, in has become clear that this page should be kept, and removed from VFD. Trying to make categories take the place of this list has been an exercise in futility. Even by abusing the category system, categories can't replace a good list:

  1. For the Recent changes function to work for a category as it does for a list, all the articles in the subcategories must also be categorized in the top category. Recent changes for Sikhism category does not return the same results as does recent changes for Sikh Pages. Checking the category only is a lot less useful for those needing (or wanting) to check all the related articles contained on the list.
  2. A list can contain those pages of topical interest which should not be categorized in it; for instance, Punjabi language is of interest to those studying Sikhism but would not normally fall in a Sikhism category (and needs to be removed).
  3. As is always mentioned, lists can contain comments.
  4. As is always mentioned, needed articles (red-links) can only be on lists.
  5. Also, this list is as valid and useful as any of the others in Category:Topic lists.

Too, the argument that the user should be able to determine which tool to use for navigation and editing seems to fall on deaf ears, but it's no less valid. —DialUp 21:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.