Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State leaders by year

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. Sr 13 05:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State leaders by year

This is not an encyclopedic page but a list of lists. Wikipedia is better served by deleting this and all of its off sets and substituting catagories based on either decade or century in its place. NobutoraTakeda 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT NobutoraTakeda has been banned from Wikipedia for disruption.

Strong Delete - This is one of the clearest examples of WP:NOT#LINK that I have seen. In fact I think all the other articles in the series should be deleted -- Gudeldar 19:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This meets WP:LIST (in chronological order and 'lists can be used as a table of contents'), it is part of a wikiproject and has red links showing which years have been done. A disucssion has been ongoing on splitting which I would support as it is overlong but that is not an issue for AFD. Davewild 19:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The list may be a valuable information source." That is from the lists page. This information is not a valuable information source. It lists every year and is impossible to fill. It requires OR or subjectively chosing which is which. It also has no purpose except to list dates of dates which are better served by a catagory than a list. This is an encyclopedia, not a grouping of redundant pages. NobutoraTakeda 19:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument we must delete all lists organised by date. It is not OR as it has clearly defined limits i.e. the leaders of states by the year. A category and list do not have to be exclusive. As per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes 'These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other.' In this case the list provides a simple navigational support between the different years and between the different overall list of leaders such as Religious leaders by year. As we are WP:NOTPAPER having the pages showing who is leader in a particular year is very notable and this operates as a main page for the series. Davewild 19:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to say "by that argument" I will respond in kind. By your argument, we should also have a list of world leaders by hair color, by height, by ethnicity, by religion, etc. If the information was important, it would be listed on the World Leader's page. If you want to have something to catagorize the world leader so that people can find it by what century they were in, then please make a catagory. Right now its a worthless list that talks up a lot of room and can never be completed. Just because we aren't paper doesn't mean we have to have every unnotworthy list that lacks any descriptive text or notworthy references.NobutoraTakeda 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your using the slippery slope fallacy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes we have the Category:Lists of state leaders by year but given the number of these, the list is easier to navigate especially if researching non-consecutive years. Carlossuarez46 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Researching non consecutive years? Wikipedia isn't about making research easier. If a catagory can't do what is needed here then make its not really needed. Its not only redundant, its three times redundant. NobutoraTakeda 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will spell out the redundancy. Talk a leader of 265 AD. His name will be on his page with the date. His name will by on the list of leaders for 265. His name will be on the other lists of leaders for the other dates. His name will be listed to by the catagory and the state leaders by year list. Thats four things doing the same exact thing and they all need to go and be reformated by having a catagory for leaders by dates and having subcatagories for the individual centuries. The rest is way too redundant. NobutoraTakeda 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excellent navigation device. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean an excellent navigation device that is exactly the same as the category, right? NobutoraTakeda 01:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Speedy Close Comment withdrawn, I apologize to the nominator. Mandsford 01:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you accuse me of not having good faith and not reading when you didn't read that there is already a catagory that has everything there already? NobutoraTakeda 01:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above arguments. NorthernThunder 09:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe that the exact same information should be duplicated in both the normal page and the catagory? Seriously? NobutoraTakeda 15:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above arguments Taprobanus 14:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe that the exact same information should be duplicated in both the normal page and the catagory? Seriously? NobutoraTakeda 15:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Speedy Close Meets WP:LIST in full, and this is a nonsense nomination by an editor on a WP:POINT trip. Close with predjuice. Thewinchester ^(talk) 16:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Wikipedia List say that a list is able to duplicate 100% the information included in a catagory? Your accusations are unwarranted and you have demonstrated not reading the arguments. NobutoraTakeda 16:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While a category can do some things, the result of retiring these lists would be a mass of irrelevant categories on a heap of articles. The formatting within these allows them to be informative lists and, with some work, several of them could reach featured list status if the community can develop a consensus on how to format them to meet said requirements. Orderinchaos 16:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a catagory. This has been pointed out many times. If the catagory is problematic, why not propose the deletion of it? There should only be one or the other. NobutoraTakeda 17:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Davewild. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Structured list, meets WP:NOT#LINK. --Canley 13:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you honestly think that Not#Link approves of lists that are exactly 100% the same as a catagory? NobutoraTakeda 14:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, but this isn't exactly 100% the same as a category. Are you going to respond to every keep suggestion? It's getting a bit repetitive, it's pretty clear what your opinion is. --Canley 15:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and close as per above arguments and developing consensus. This not a weak listcruft. It is not merely interesting. It appears to be a useful project, an index if you will. This discussion is a case of the missing snowball. Bearian 00:04, 19 July 2007 (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.