Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of some notable dancers

List of some notable dancers[edit]

List of some notable dancers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unmanageable list, could be achieved much better as a category. created to make a WP:POINT because List of the best Dancers was nominated for deletion. Roleplayer (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think the author was making a WP:POINT; I think he/she was responding to the criticism that the title of the prior article violated WP:NPOV. No opinion on this one, though. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: that part duly struck out. I still think it would serve better as a category though. -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There already is a list of dancers WP considers notable. It's at Category:Dancers. Making an article for just "some" of them--well, it just doesn't make much sense. Anturiaethwr (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a category, not a list. categories do not replace lists. They are synergistic in nature and both serve different purposes. Redundancy with lists and categories is not a reason to delete one or the other. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, but rename to List of dancers for the obvious reason that "some" is indiscriminate. There are several reasons why categories do not replace lists. There are many things that can be done with them. Please view CLN. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for those who don't want to read CLN, here are the relevant passages: These methods should not be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia. See the navigation menu at the top of Wikipedia:Contents, and see Category:Categories. Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system - doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CLN. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• MovetoList of dancers, 'some' seems unencyclopedic to me. SunCreator (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• RenametoList of dancers ("some" just invites the question "which ones?"), and trim down the text. Each of the entries on this list is practically a capsule biography, which would be great if these were stub articles (in fact, some stubs should probably be created for the redlinks!), but is a little excessive for a list of this size. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• MovetoList of dancers and aggressively trim to a list, possibly sortable, per Zetawoof. (Use of "notable" in article titles is discouraged. All topics with articles should be notable or lists of notable things.) --Dhartung | Talk 00:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per Celanor et al. -Sean Curtin (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Some" notable, what is the criteria? Unmaintainable, open-ended, and subjective. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes renaming it to "List of Dancers" a non-viable solution? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Such a list would be far too large. KleenupKrew (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but in the event it becomes unmanagable, it can always be subdivided. Deletion is only for articles that aren't in line with policy, not "articles I don't know how we can manage". Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• RenametoList of Dancers. I was going to suggest the category vs. list thing, but apparently Wikipedia policy has once again changed by osmosis (given how many folks are citing the "categories are not lists" philosophy in their arguments to keep even though just a few weeks ago same philosophy was being used to justify deletion of list articles. I really wish this community would make up its bloody mind. It's like the place is run by George Orwell. 23skidoo (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline has included the "they shouldn't be in conflict" bit since November of 2007. Most editors just don't realize it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Some notable dancers"? Delete. Use a category. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And leave a hole in the List of occupations hierarchy? Categories don't replace lists. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Use a category - or more than one. Isaacsf (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, how would we deal with the hole that would be in the List of occupations hiearchy? I.e, List of painters, List of writers, List of theologians, etc. Keep in mind that there are two ways of browsing Wikipedia, not one. They're not meant to be exclusive; rather, they're meant to complement each other. I don't quite understand why some editors have trouble with understanding this. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, every one of the lists you referenced is a list of lists, and is essentially a category of either other categories, or names of people with wikified links to them. None tries to be a "best of" list, and none provides a summary of each, as this article does. This article is a cherry-picked list. If it were simply a neat, organized, long list of names, as the other ones are, I'd support keeping it. Isaacsf (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, granted, that's what it should be. But it has the capability to be changed to that without much effort. And since it can be improved by editing, I don't think it's a good deletion candidate. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Perfectly reasonable list. Should be renamed to something like "List of notable dancers" or "List of dancers", though. Klausness (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; movetoList of dancers per Celarnor; trim out duplicated biographical material, starting articles for red links likely to be notable/encyclopaedic per Zetawoof. tomasz. 13:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tbat's what categories are for.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There's already something similar, or at least overlapping, at Dance personalia that should be considered in this discussion. Shawisland (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks a lot like what list of dancers should look like. Probably should merge that in. (What the heck is a "personalia", though?!) Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personalia doesn't mean what the page author seemed to have in mind, so I've renamed that page to List of dance personalities. In any case, the two articles seem to be good candidates for a merge. Klausness (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would not go so far as to say that every category must have an associated list, but even that would make mroe sensethan considering that we must have either the one or the other. DGG (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2008 (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.