Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of World War II articles (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 keep. Keep as I don't see support for deletion or a strong argument for why this page should be deleted other than it being proposed as a test case. I encourage participants to engage in a discussion about Wikipedia policies on Indexes though as this seems to be a bit ambiguous. Links to possible policy pages are listed in previous relisting comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index of World War II articles (0–9)[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 unorganized, simply alphabetical list of articles serves no useful purpose. Category:World War II and all its subcategories do a much, much better job. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 24 more (letter) indices, but let's try a test case first. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there a policy on this kind of index? Given there are a lot of pages, it seems to me that an alphabetical list is doing a different job to Category:World War II. JMWt (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly have indices and this one is included in our index of indices: Wikipedia:Contents/Indices. Is there a policy? I don't know, we maybe just have them, like disambiguation pages, redirects, files and articles. Even if there is a policy it wouldn't stop people trying to delete indices. Some people a while ago tried to get rid of portals, so why not indices (or articles)? Thincat (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: erroneous nomination as wrong forum due to inappropriate scope. Alphabetical is a standard form of organization, and Wikipedia indexes are alphabetical by definition! I respectfully request that this deletion discussion be closed, and/or that the nominator withdraw the nomination. The argument that indexes serve no useful purpose is an issue for an AfD or RfC of the whole index system (see: Wikipedia:Contents/Indices), making an AfD for a single index, let alone a single page of a 25-page multi-page index, the wrong forum for determining what to do about that issue. The scope of notification should match the scope of the issue: the proper procedure for deleting the index system would be to nominate the whole system for deletion, and placing a deletion notice on every index article page, rather than going after it one page at a time (and thereby notifying hardly anybody). If there was a valid reason for deleting a particular multi-page index article (not the alphabetical nature of indexes), the procedure would be to nominate the whole index for deletion and place a deletion notice on all of its pages, rather than isolate a tiny piece of it in an attempt to set a precedent (as a "test case") for the removal of the rest of its pages — which also makes this AfD page a wrong forum. The nominator has cited no rules violations, and has instead posed alphabetical format, one of the two standard formats for lists (per list policy), as a reason for deletion (the other format being hierarchical), thus opposing that policy. In addition to this, the nominator appears to be opposed to indexes (alphabetical navigation lists) in general, in favor of categories. Note, that indexes, make up one of the navigation systems, that together, comprise the overall Wikipedia:Contents system. Both of those issues — discontinuing use of alphabetical list format, and deleting indexes just because they are indexes — go beyond the scope of an AfD of an individual page, and so, should be discussed by the wider community, if at all. Relevant policies and guidelines are Wikipedia:Speedy keep, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, Wikipedia:Lists, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, and Wikipedia:Indexes. See also: Wikipedia:Gaming the system, for further perspective. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 22:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. This topic is so vast, an index would have to be humongous, totally unwieldy. For example, as far as I can tell, none of the 1st Division World War II entries are present. Where are the 1st Corps? First Army contains many 1st Army entries; where are they? There is a tiny fraction of the vast number of people involved. Why is Anne Frank in the A list? No Audie Murphy under either A or M? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Clarityfiend, JMWt, Thincat, and Explicit: Clarityfiend, you didn't address the speedy keep objections to your nomination. The notification should match the scope of the discussion. You're arguing to delete a huge index by posting a deletion discussion on only one of its pages, exposing this talk to a mere fraction of the index's user traffic, without posting a notice on its 24 other pages. Deleting part of an index would damage the whole, by creating a gap, without providing the visitors to the rest of it the opportunity to participate in the decision making process. A conquer-and-divide deletion nomination of one page of a 25-page index is unacceptable — it is inappropriate to attempt to delete 1/25th of such a list in a progression to delete the whole thing. It's an abuse of the AfD process, with the same effect as gaming the system... You also argued in the nomination above that the page should be deleted because it is an alphabetical list, that is, an index, which is an official type of navigation aid on Wikipedia. An AfD on a small fraction of a multi-page list is not the proper venue for discussing the applicability of an entire class of navigation article. I respectfully request that you withdraw your nomination. And I have an offer for you: we can explore the available options for improving the whole index on its main talk page, and I would be happy to collaborate with you in doing so. For example, we could look at the best indexes and index sets on Wikipedia, and assess what it would take (tools, etc.) to bring and maintain the WWII index up to that caliber of excellence, among other things. And, if, after that, you are still not satisfied, a new deletion nomination (on the whole index) can easily be posted. I look forward to working with you. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 17:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though without guessing the nominator's motives I don't know whether WP:SPEEDYKEEP applies. Most likely the nominator was in a grumpy mood (I am too because I live in Britain). I don't start to follow how a "simply alphabetical" list can be "unorganized" unless it is the misplacement of items that is the problem (and "Anne Frank" is given as a not too relevant example). My reading is that the other pages mentioned are not being nominated for deletion. If more links are added to this page and it becomes too long it can be very easily split. I think WP:IDONTLIKEIT can be an entirely valid reason to be nominating for deletion but it may not persuade others. It certainly doesn't persuade me. Even if I deeply disliked an article I wouldn't then think that other people should be stopped from reading it, or other editors from improving it. So keep, rather definitely keep. Thincat (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think the relevant pages to consider are Wikipedia:Set index articles and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 24 October 2022 (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.