Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of health topics (0-9)

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 no consensus. — Aitias // discussion 01:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of health topics (0-9)[edit]

Incomplete since about 2007, unwieldy, and has no real focus on health. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment. Instead of many pages covering health topics I would like to see only one page (List of health topics) that covers it. It would make for a more succinct page that is easier to use. Many of the links could be covered at, say List of biology topics or whatever. Some WP editors do not seem to keep lists within rational boundaries with the result that lists cove a very wide range of disparate topics. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Delete and create category if needed, otherwise, delete. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The redlinks might be useful in project space as a list of potential article topics, but the list isn't useful to readers. (If anything, it's a hindrance: a user who searches for a term and finds it in this list as a redlink isn't likely to be helped by the discovery that it's a "health topic".) Moreover, many of the words don't appear to be more than tangentially health-related: sextant shows up, as well as sculpture, squirrel, and skittles. Finally, it's incomplete to the point of being ridiculous - I'm sure there are actual health-related topics that don't start with H or S, but there appears to have been absolutely no effort to include them in the two years or so that this list has existed. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has no place in main space, could be moved to project space. Punkmorten (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isn't this part of the Table-of-contents navigation scheme? 76.66.195.159 (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and improve. If nobody is working on these at all in any subject w should reconsider the scheme, but amy view is that we should try to maintain as may organizational methods a possible., DGG (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and improve. Can across this today when I was going to add info about Supracondylar fracture and found that this page and many others are missing. We do have a long way to go to make this a comprehensive medical source. Were did all this topics come from by the way?--Doc James (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|^(talk) 05:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize (Are we on WP:EfD? :)) This will do a lot better on that because it makes search and subcategorizing a lot easier. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 06:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a Category:Health. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A glance at a random page up for deletion shows that a majority of the topics are only tangentally related to health or not at all (Sea horse, SDS and Secondary alcohol). Categorizing them as such would result in miscategorization. Whoever wants to use it is better of searching existing categories like: Category:Diseases and disorders Category:Nutrition Category:Medical terms etc. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how about List_of_environmental_topics_(A) and so on? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bad comparison, because that is list is actually discriminate about what it includes. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. What about X?? MuZemike (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have put that lot up for a merge to List_of_environmental_topics. The same problem exists on those lists - the links in the lists are way outside of a decent boundary of inclusion, and the list is unwieldy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are navigation articles, that readers reach from the table of contents linked-to from the navigation bar and from right at the top of the main page. The navigation route is Portal:Contents → Portal:Contents/Lists of basic topics#Health and fitness → Topic outline of health → List of health topics (0-9). Please remember that we do attempt to provide readers with a way to navigate the encyclopaedia by topic. Uncle G (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for using topic lists for navigation within WP but it would make navigation a LOT easier if the topic list was on one page and links are made to articles that have a major focus on health. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uncle G's logic. There's no reason we can't have both categories and lists at the same time. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with having lists and categories. I would like to see this topic list as one page only. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And limited to actual health topics, but I still wonder why the categories I mentioned aren't enough. They list all the relevant health topics. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, 23 December 2008 (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.