Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chocolate-related articles

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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of chocolate-related articles[edit]

I think this article should go since Category:Chocolate should cover it. —BenFrantzDale 07:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, users shouldn't have to guess what articles are about. Kappa 16:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. Does seem redundant with Category:Chocolate, however it does list some things that are related to chocolate that does not fit the category, like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, York Chocolate cat and Chocolate and slavery however if you remove all the stuff that overlap the category there is not a whole lot left. --Sherool 16:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since this is a list of current articles, that's exactly what a category is for. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 17:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But why should users have to guess what's in the articles? Kappa 17:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - By that logic, why do we even have categories at all? Use lists for what they're meant for. See WP:CLS. --howcheng [ talk  contribs  web ] 17:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - We have categories because they are self-updating. See WP:CLS. Kappa 17:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, categories are king for this kind of thing. Anybody who wonders what an article is about and lacks the wit to see "Gee, it's in Category:Chocolate, it's probably about chocolate" should steel themselves to the horror and read the article. 142.104.250.115 17:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote by me. I tend to spontaneously log out enough when I access Wikipedia from my university library and sometimes I fail to notice. Lord Bob 17:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Categories are like a box of chocolates: You never know what you are going to get. Users' time isn't important, so if they are looking for a brand from a particular country, they can just keep on clicking until they find it. Kappa 18:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Subcategories are your friend. Might I suggest Category:Canadian chocolate or Category:Belgian chocolate or even Category:American chocolate? Lord Bob 18:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - So that's one extra page to navigate through. Are you going to subdivide by Category:American chocolate in bars and Category:American chocolate in buttons Category:British chocolate with air bubbles etc? Kappa 18:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        At that stage of specificity, I'd suggest "reading the articles". In my opinion, Wikipedia should not cater to the staggeringly lazy in research. Lord Bob 22:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        So someone looking for chocolate in the form of buttons and not bars only has to look through all the chocolate articles for each nationality until they find it. Kappa 22:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep. I just don't believe the oh-so-marginal use to lazy chocolate researchers justifies the redundancy. Lord Bob 22:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Poor users. Kappa 23:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment (no vote). It seems to me that we must weigh precision of search terms against amount of time necessary for the user to achieve such precision. This is precisely why we have both categories and lists, and why in my mind it's good to have both oftentimes -- if they both work well. Users can choose how they want to find the information. However, if a list or a category is ill-named or ill-organized, it's probably not going to be of much use. If both a list and a category are ill-named or ill-organized, well then, we have quite the large problem on our hands! --Jacquelyn Marie 19:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Lists can be easily reorganized by copy/pasting and redirection, category regorganization requires much manual labor or a bot and and admin to delete empty cats. Kappa 20:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        My basic point is, list and/or category, if it's not properly done it will be of no use to anyone. I'm personally not voting, but if we choose whether to fix one or the other based on how easy it is, well... poor users. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since we have the category, anything chocotastic or chocoriffic (or even chocorrifying) can go there. Andrew Levine 21:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But why should users have to guess what's in the articles? Kappa 22:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you mean? No "guesswork" is involved. Either you read the article, in which case you know what's in it, or you click go to Category:Chocolate, and find them all. If an article title is so poorly chosen that it doesn't convey what the article is about, then it's a bad title and it the article should be moved to a better title or should have redirects created for it. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where do you suggest moving Freia and Kuapa Kokoo to? Kappa 22:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Create a redirect from Freia (Norwegian chocolate brand) or whatever you like. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        So I create a redirect from Freia (Norwegian chocolate brand) and take Freia (chocolate) out of category:Chocolate? But then how will anyone looking at Freia (chocolate) know what category it's in? Kappa 23:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is why we have categories. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly redundant with the category. --Carnildo 23:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But the category doesn't say what things are. Kappa 23:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is plenty of precedent for having both categories and lists for things. Plus, this article has been rearranged since it was first submitted to AfD, and now makes several distinctions that the categories do not. I leave it to you to decide if the latter is a good enough reason to keep the list, but redundancy with the category per se is not, per precendent. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I personally don't see enough here to vote on, either way, as the nomination is highly suspect per WP:CLS, which says, and I quote, "These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." If you'd like to offer a reason to delete this article based on its merits and demerits alone, I'd be happy to vote. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is weird and self-referential, and anything important should surely be linked to from chocolate. A "list of chocolate products", or something, might make more sense. Flower party■ 17:01, 25 October 2005 (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.