Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States congressional lists

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States congressional lists[edit]

unencyclopedic and self-referencing article. This list is a WP:MOS violation as Wikipedia articles should not reference Wikipedia. See WP:SELF. Tavix (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fills an apparent need, and the claim of "self-referencing" des not appear to be key to me. Many articles primarily refer to material on WP, what would be improper is using the list as a RS for some sort of claim, but no such claims appear to be made. Collect (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I made this list and it's been rarely improved. Yes, it's self-referential in violation of WP policy and that's why I agree to delete it. However, it does fill a need and I wish there was a better way to implement it. If it's deleted, can someone suggest a better use?—Markles 21:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the reasons why categories exist. Tavix (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I couldn't find anything about lists on WP:MOS. List does not reference Wikipedia, it references the US Government. I assume the WP:MOS guideline has been invented by the nominator. Please cite WP:MOS. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to advise you to assume good faith. Just because you couldn't find the MOS violation, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Secondly, read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. You should find it there. Tavix (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not there. Perhaps this would be a good place to start: Wikipedia:Lists. Here's a quote from the top of the page: "Lists and categories are synergistic." --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your confused. Think of it this way: This list exists solely because there are other Wikipedia lists that are about the United States congress. It doesn't discuss/list anything else expect those Wikipedia links. That is a self-reference. You can also maybe think about it as original research because the only research available/possible for this list is the fact that there are other lists on Wikipedia. If it wasn't for those lists, the list in question would have no content, and therefore wouldn't exist. Tavix (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why should it be discussed for deletion? --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the entire article is a self-reference to Wikipedia, if we remove the self-reference, we will have nothing left (besides maybe a template). So deleting the article seems to be the only other option. Tavix (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pertinent self-reference guidelines seem to guide editors to avoid being too philosophical and self-limited, or cutesy and inner-directed, when editing the Wikipedia. The Wikipedia is not intellectually dorky, in other words; nor is it an area for intellectual cliques and in-jokes. It's just the general trend and purpose of the self-reference guidelines that I am trying to talk about here. It doesn't have much to do with a list like this, of which there are of course very many in the Wikipedia. ...And if there could be produced and copied a relevant guideline for the purposes of this discussion, it would be appreciated. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does being a self-reference have anything do with Wikipedia "being too philosophical"? This is getting too off topic from the issue at hand. 23:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is. Nomination has no rationale as per WP:MOS, list isn't really deletable per WP:LIST, there isn't much to discuss here. --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from WP:SAL, first paragraph: Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view." Stop trying to pass off lists as something that doesn't have to pass guidelines and can still be included. Tavix (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. One thing about categories is that they cannot be presented in tabular format; see List of African stock exchanges. Information such as date of founding, number of listed companies, city of location, and an external link are included in this table, which originated as a list. List of government ministries of Cambodia will be another example, including the government link, date of founding, the Senior Minister, important agencies devolved from the Ministry, etc. --Mr Accountable (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a category - This ought to be converted into a category so it will update itself and be more easily findable. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list should definitely not be converted to a category. From WP:Lists#Purposes of lists "Redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial because they are synergistic, and is covered in the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates." The tone of the WP guidelines in regard to lists and categories is overwhelmingly positive in regard to both. Why should one be thinking to choose between the two? --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, this is obviously, clearly, plainly, a useful list per WP:LIST. Lists are not subject to WP:MOS, unless they have controversial content. A category would be worse than useless here. I'm not sure what the nominator means. Can you please explain more clearly? The burden is on you. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. I see how, arguably, since this list has no references, it thus violates the Manual of Style guidelines. I do not see that as a big problem, but I tagged it for rescue anyway. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list was made for the sole purpose of listing other Wikipedia articles. This is a self-reference because the only thing that can reference it is Wikipedia articles, which is evident from the list. If you want to get really complex, it also cannot be verified by reliable secondary sources, as the only thing it lists are other Wikipedia articles. Tavix (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep usefull list, purely organizational and helpful Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 05:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but suggest that people who would work on this try to bring similar lists relating to other countries to the same standard, per WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly useful list. It does a job not dome by a category of flagging up those lists that need to be created. TerriersFan (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A "list of lists" such as this one is a "neutral self-reference" which is specifically allowed by guidelines, see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists of lists and WP:SELF#Neutral self-references are acceptable. DHowell (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent citation. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2009 (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.