Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Brazil-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 was delete. Consensus is that this index article does not serve as a useful navigational aid, and does not provide any utility beyond that which is already provided by existing categories, outlines, and the search functionality built in to WP. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Brazil-related articles[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

An alphabetic list of Brazil-related articles. Effectively unmaintained since not long after its creation in late 2008, it's got fewer than 600 entries. That's a tiny fraction of the more than 35,000 articles currently tracked by the Brazil Wikiproject. Such an incomplete index can mislead readers into believing we don't have the articles when in fact we do.

In principle, such lists don't have much value for readers any more (see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of India-related articles). In this particular case, if the list were to be made complete, it would be unworkably large. There's also no scope for converting into a more curated list of important Brazil-related topics, because that's alraedy done at Outline of Brazil. – Uanfala (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Turn into disamig per DF. incredibly outdated and far too broad. Dronebogus (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Indexes of topics by country exist with 293 articles like this. If you want to delete these types of articles, then it should be discussed elsewhere for all of them at once. The article should be changed to just list four links: Wikiproject's list of Brazil articles at [1], Category:Brazil, Outline of Brazil and the most useful of them Category:Brazil-related lists. This would help people find what they are looking for easier. Dream Focus 18:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that this should have been a bundle nom, but only for countries with similarly huge numbers of articles. Something like Index of San Marino–related articles could probably stay as-is. Dronebogus (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that should be deleted too, it basically duplicates Outline of San Marino. Reywas92^Talk 19:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't oppose a big discussion about the whole group of appr. 170 remaining country indexes. A repeat of the result of this 2007 mass nomination appears highly unlikely, although I'm concerned it may still end up being a WP:TRAINWRECK. There are many countries without associated wikiprojects; also, I don't know if we can take it for granted that all the smaller projects will have effectively tracked their articles (so we can't immediately assume the indexes don't add value). A few of the indexes appear much better maintained (though still incomplete), and as pointed out already, the smaller ones don't present the same maintenance problems. – Uanfala (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- One option would be to keep nominating individual articles until there’s an unquestionable consensus to delete the format, then bundle nominate them in batches until they’re gone. That’s how a lot of pointless “list of politicians by [x]” lists were cleared out. Dronebogus (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are thousands of Brazil-related articles, and listing a small fraction of them in alphabetical order is useless for readers. We have main articles, we have an outline organized by topic, we have categories, and we have the search bar, so I am confused why pages like this still exist. I oppose turning this into a disambig, but it could redirect to Outline of Brazil that could link to the relevant categories and project pages. Reywas92^Talk 19:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a navigational index per WP:NLIST, "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all other lists of this type as indiscriminate lists. How are they actually useful? Geschichte (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are navigational indices per WP:LISTPURP. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That utterly fails to explain what makes it useful. How does this help you navigate? What does this have that the outline doesn't? (okay, the outline's not that long, but it's actually organized and would be more helpful for navigation if merged appropriately!) That categories don't? That the search bar doesn't? This has zero organization or criteria for what is and is not included so I see little use for it or a blanket inclusion for listing any number of links merely because they are links./ Reywas92^Talk 14:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTPURP explains, "If users have some general idea of what they are looking for but do not know the specific terminology, they could browse the lists of basic topics and more comprehensive lists of topics, which in turn lead to most if not all of Wikipedia's lists, which in turn lead to related articles." SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or they can browse an outline that may be more helpful to them since it's organized by "general ideas"! There are millions of topics on Wikipedia (and tens of thousands relating to Brazil), and to list a very, very, very small selection of them on context-free alphabetical lists and pretend that's inherently useful is utterly absurd. "lists of basic topics" in that quote goes to Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines, which provide organization and sometimes descriptions about articles someone may be looking for, much better than indices! Reywas92^Talk 02:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find it absurd that an encyclopedia has an index of topics that is in alphabetical order. Different people approach finding information in different ways. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're looking for Salvador, Bahia, the fourth largest city in Brazil? Oh too bad, this shitty index doesn't have it, just like it doesn't have the other 30,000 Brazil-related articles. This is pointless and unmanageable, and quoting here, "This index is so incomplete that the harm it does in misleading readers far outweighs any conceivable benefit it might still provide." Reywas92^Talk 18:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a growing theme with these types of articles. See: India, Pakistan, China and Romania. In fact every index article for every country should be nominated as well. Ajf773 (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are proposing the equivalent of ripping the index out of an encyclopedia one page at a time! SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a WP:PAPER encyclopedia. The equivalent of an index on WP is the search bar and category system. Dronebogus (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the equivalent of an index on Wikipedia is the index. Not being a paper encyclopedia allows Wikipedia to have additional context specific indices that aid in finding related topics. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I had no idea the index existed until now then maybe it’s not actually that useful to readers. Many times I’ve seen keep voters without strong arguments rely on WP:ITSUSEFUL without stating why, or use the increasingly meaningless citation of WP:LISTPURP-“navigational” as a more “professional” sounding substitute. Dronebogus (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing some consistency across the whole site. Either every country has a relative index article, or none should. Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean that Either every country should have a relative index article, or none should. Some forms of consistency cannot be forced, or there would be no encyclopedia. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could the purpose of this article be achieved through a category alone? Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe if the category system was not so cluttered with miscategorisations and looped categories. As it stands, not very well. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The topic is far too wide in scope for this to be anything but hopelessly incomplete, thus serving no useful navigational purpose. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and User:Reywas92. This is not useful and woefully misleading if the number above is correct. While a discussion "somewhere" might be a good thing, and someone can initiate this, it does not solve this issue. As far as I am aware we do not keep an article at AFD because other articles also need deleting. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: @Ajf773: I agree and think listing a minuscule number of articles does not make this "useful" or anywhere near a “navigational” aid per @Dronebogus:. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2021 (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.