Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breath mints

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of breath mints

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Devoid of any content apart from a list of brands, and by definition always going to be a straight forward list. Wikipedia is not a directory. This would be far better served by a category, if it is even necessary at all. Viridae ^Talk 03:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC) Viridae ^Talk 03:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes a category would be better. I was surprised to see some many articles on them. Borock (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess that the worst insult that I can make for a list is that it's "no better than a category", and that would apply here. If all I want is an alphabetized list of articles about a particular subject, that's what categories are good for. I can't say "keep", because this is actually less useful than Category: Breath mints. I'll hold off on saying "delete", however, because it's possible that someone could write an intelligent article about the breath mint (currently a redirect to Mint (candy), as opposed to a place that manufactures coins and such), with sourcing, history, description of ingredients, etc. and, if someone wants to add a list to that article, information such as who the manufacturer is. If someone wants to be a lifesaver, to add something extra, to try to excel, to do more than take things in stride, to freshen this article, I think that it can be done. Mandsford (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list contains more information than a category, because of the red links. The red links would not show up in a category. This provides the fact of the existance of the named product, even there is not article yet. This is also useful in alerting editors that an article needs to be written. Also, per Mandsford, the article could be expanded to include date of introduction, manufacturer, and other pertinent information. That could not be done with a category. Breath mints is a multimillion dollar industry, this list has existed since 2004, and it should be kept. Herostratus (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. I must have added this to my watchlist back in February to see what happened to it, apparently it fell into an abyss. It would be nice if someone volunteered to do what Mandsford is suggesting, and having a listing of notable breath mints as part of such an article would be fine I think.--Milowent (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not touching this article because Mandsford's blackmail is unethical — if he wants someone to improve the article, he should do it himself - AFD is not an article improvement service. Suffice it to say that the topic is notable, being covered in works such as the Encyclopedia of Consumer Brands and WP:CLS tells us that categories are irrelevant when considering the matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep' on the general approach that for things, and people, and the like , if we have enough wikipedia articles, we should have both a category & a list as well. They are complementary. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 22 May 2010 (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.