Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Brazil-related topics

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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-09 08:40Z

List of Brazil-related topics[edit]

This list is the very definition of indiscriminate and one of the worst examples of listcruft we have. The criterion for inclusion apparently seems to be subject matter relating to Brazil. This is exactly what we have categories for, subcategorization gives a far more helpful navigation tool than an unwieldy (set of) list(s). To make matters worse there is ZERO text in this article aimed at readers, and the only non-list text is a bit of advice to editors. Delete Nilf anion (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you're unaware of Category:Lists of topics by country, which includes links to many such lists. To give two examples List of India-related topics and List of United States-related topics. That said this particular list is way too long and not done right. Also I don't know how I feel about the category.--T. Anthony 01:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of all these lists, and I feel they are all utterly inappropriate (a Category structure is much better). However, given the sheer number of these I feel making a nomination on one of them without prejudice on the others is the way forward; better to gauge consensus on one of them then have a massive bulk nomination which would likely be a sockfest. This particular one is hideous as it stands, but even after clean up there will still be an unencyclopedic list.--Nilf anion (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lists exist because they were started as the only means to organise the articles before the category system existed. Perhaps they have had their day, but I find your contempt for the huge amount of effort by good wikipedians that they represent repellent. The fact that I am probably the largest contributor to the subcategorisation of the by-country categories which have largely superseded these lists does little to reduce my annoyance at your unpleasant attitude. CalJW 02:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I completely agree with Nilfanion. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 01:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information that the list contains would seem to be way more efficiently used in categories, and not as an extremely large list, as Nilfanion said in the nomination. The navigation in categories contains articles that relate to each other, without containing other, non-related articles. Seems to be an indiscriminate list of information, which is what Wikipedia is not. Kyra_~(talk) 01:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize. Categories are a much more efficient method of handling this list, imagin the list "American related topics" Jeepday 01:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to imagine it - it exists as List of United States-related topics. Natalie 02:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - 235Kb? ARgh! Josh Parris
Delete per nom. However, I think newer Wikipedia users are not very familiar with categories, so would it be totally out of line to redirect this page to Category: Brazil? Natalie 02:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - lists can be very useful conra categories; this one is not well done and offers little information beyond list membership for each entry. +sj + 21:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list is so indiscriminate as to be utterly useless; categorisation is the way forward here. DWaterson 22:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete - Nilfanion, you note that categorization is appropriate here. However, do categories indeed exist for such things? This list is quite well-structured, while categories are often a mess. If the category structure is as detailed and well-organized, I will most likely support deletion. Also, I do not think that deliberately not listing other articles is appropriate when you are aware of them and believe the same criticisms apply. List them all and if there truly is consensus, let them all be deleted at once (that way, it is not necessary to repeat the same arguments for every single list). Black Falcon 23:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category exists here just fine its Category:Brazil and its subcategories - the scope of the list is to cover EVERYTHING in there. The structure of the whole category tree is superior to this list. One fundamental reason for not listing them all at once, is that there are a very large numbers of these. As for listing just this one as many of them are broken down further (due to the overwhelming length), this would be an AfD on hundreds of articles; and they all have a different feel. Whilst I feel they all have the same flaws, the community may not agree with me and could lead to a hideous mess, with some people saying "keep UK, USA and India but delete the rest" for example. Doing this one country at a time without letting the results from one AfD prejudice another may be less-efficient if everyone agrees with me, but if any individual article became contentious that would not poison the others and make the discussion a mess. I think I'm going to write an essay on this category and post to my user space (and link from this AfD's talk page).--Nilf anion (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I can understand your rationale behind nominating them separately. Also, I have changed my vote to delete as Category:Brazil is indeed better-organized. I may not support deleting the other country-lists, but only because I haven't look at them yet. Cheers, Black Falcon 00:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brazil is one of the biggest countries in the world. Something this general can't be useful. Shaundakulbara 00:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the nominator. No faulting the nom for choosing one of many of these types of lists for deletion instead of a bulk nom - it would have been a gong show. Better to review on a case-by-case basis in this instance. Agent 86 20:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.