Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norwegian ski jumpers

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. - Mailer Diablo 08:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Norwegian ski jumpers[edit]

This list must surely be superflouos when we have Category:Norwegian ski jumpers. Also, nothing links here. Egil 10:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a sensible idea to me (the category). Delete MidgleyDJ 11:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Redundant. MER-C 11:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the list was expanded to document olympic medals won, highest world ranking or other relevant information, it would be worth keeping. Its pretty useless right now though, particularly as there are no criteria for inclusion which would result in differences from the category. Oldelpaso 17:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I started this article as I wanted it to be something like Oldelpaso said. However, I ran out of sources so I left it at the present state for other users to accomplish. Lists as such are IMO useful as long as they contain red links, in that regard they contain more info than a category. --Ton e 18:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Lists have uses categories don't. Like red links and annotation. It needs sourcing and should be limited to people who are known for being Norwegian ski jumpers. I think it'll fit that so has no problems per the guidelines.--T. Anthony 18:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello? The list doesn't have any red links. Delete. Punkmorten 20:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that is an advantage a list has over a category, don't be so literal.--T. Anthony 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I often defend keeping list, such as List of Chadians. However, in this debate we are discussing a list which doesn't seem to have any use. Actually if you examine the edit history I took the time to categorize this particular list, believing that a bright future lay ahead of it. It turns out it didn't, and now it's time to get rid of it. Punkmorten 20:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll trust you're judgment on this.--T. Anthony 22:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perfectly good list. Jcuk 22:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Use categories for notable people. Arbusto 23:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is hopeless. Perfectly good list, indead. For anyone that has even an iota of kwonledge about the subject, the list is just a more or less random selection of the names from Category:Norwegian ski jumpers. It does not add any value to anything. Wrt. to the redlinks, it seems quite clear that smoe of the voters above has not even bothered to look at the page. -- Egil 18:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously could be useful if expanded and annotated. I agree that the category is not needed and could be profitably deleted. --JJay 01:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The category could be deleted? What on earth are you talking about? Punkmorten 06:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please explain how the category could "profitably [be] deleted". Arbusto 02:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, lists are better than categories. They can be expanded and annotated. Categories just take up space. Please delete the category. --JJay 14:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you have a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and practice. Categories are of paramount importance. Punkmorten 19:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, your opinion is noted. For others with serious misunderstandings, see WP:CFD. --JJay 21:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your misunderstandings isn't isolated to this afd either. Arbusto 21:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to your expert knowledge of misunderstanding. --JJay 02:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No value compared to the category. Pavel Vozenilek 16:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepGLGerman 02:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In this case the category does a far better job. --IslaySolomon 02:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This particular list doesn't add anything that the category already provides. -- The Bethling ^(Talk) 02:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 07:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, offers no value compared to the category. JIP | Talk 07:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we already have the category and wikipedia is not a list. Stubbleboy 12:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which is exactly why we have Wikipedia:Featured lists T REX_speak 23:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant with category.--Isotope23 15:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Redundant bernlin2000 ∞ 15:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a list of non bias true information Valoem ^talk 19:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not a reason for keeping it. T REX_speak 23:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment But it is also a list of notable people which makes it like any other list. Also see Wikipedia:List guideline a category does not necessary mean it can't have a list because lists can be more informative. Valoem ^talk 01:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - But this one is not. Punkmorten 07:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing has been done with this, time to go. ~ trialsanderrors 09:46, 29 September 2006 (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.