Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of furniture companies (2nd nomination)

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. This does not prevent prevent the recreation of a list that contains more information than just the alphabetical listing of articles, because, as some correctly say, lists have a different purpose from categories. But I have to give the "keep" opinions a little less weight here, because they do not address the "Wikipedia is not the yellow pages" issue that some "delete" opinions raise. Sandstein 06:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of furniture companies[edit]

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

This article does not seem to add anything over the Category:Furniture manufacturers. Si Trew (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lists are not strictly redundant with categories in that lists can contain redlinks. Given Wikipedia's spotty coverage of corporations that aren't household names or currently in the news for scandal, this is quite hypothetically useful.
This one doesn't do that, of course, but "it sucks right now" isn't a deletion argument unless none of the current content would be included in a future revision of the page. --erachima talk 06:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - This could be a useful list, but this page hasn't improved in 4 years and technically speaking I agree fully with the nominator. Not quite ready to pull the trigger, and I think "it's sucked for 4 years" is something to factor into the deletion discussion, but neutral for now. Shadowjams (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A pointless list. This isn't a phone book. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the same exact deletion rationale as four years ago. Here is the same exact keep rationale that destroys this weak argument. "WP:Lists are not redundant with categories, they serve a different purpose" by admin WilyD. Did the nom read the last AFD, or just figure, "F it, maybe I can push it through this time with the same gd rationale and nobody will notice"?? Vodello (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nom read the nomination and decided after four years people may have changed their minds on what they think about articles like this. The nom considers that although lists should serve different purposes than categories, lists that have no information other than the names of articles are not serving a different purpose and so deserve deletion. The nom finds it a bit harsh to question his motive when he brings an article to AfD in good faith. Si Trew (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Vodello is wondering why the nom is speaking about the nom in the third person. It doesn't matter if there's a delete vote here and there: Lists and categories served different purposes in 2006, and they serve different purposes in 2010. Vodello (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with nominating an article after 4 years. Much has changed, except this article, regrettably. I don't find appealing to the past AfD compelling in this instance. Shadowjams (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination does not seem to add anything over the last one. WP:CLS explains clearly that categories do not supersede lists. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Consensus can change over the course of 4 years. This article does not add any information to the project that is not already contained in the category. Furthermore, there is no more useful or notable information about these companies that could be added to this list. That is why this list has "sucked" for 4 years, and it will continue to do so for even longer. SnottyWong ^converse 14:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a navigational list, this is essentially redundant to the category, and could well become unmaintainable. Claritas § 15:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a directory, something wikipedia is not. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2010 (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.