Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New Zealand military people

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. No reason to delete. I will not accept an overturn by a non admin on this one. Please take it to

talk) 03:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

List of New Zealand military people

)

This incomplete list is made redundant by Category:New Zealand military personnel, which serves the purpose far better. Leithp 06:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Leithp Buckshot06 (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Leithp 07:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Leithp 07:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As a list, it has the potential to give more information about each person than just the article title, such as conflicts in which they were involved, their service, and rank. It can also include people for whom no article currently exists. However, if it's going to have any chance of becoming such a list, it needs to be adopted by at least one regular editor, or even by a newbie who shows enthusiasm. If any such editor steps up here and volunteers, I'll vote to keep.-gadfium 07:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOEFFORT is not a reason for deletion. cab (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - I'm not arguing for deletion. I'm just not defending an article that currently stub class if no one cares about it.-gadfium 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per
WP:CLS, "incomplete list", "redundant to category", are not reasons for deleting a list. The list is already superior to the category in that it is annotated. Editors may prefer to segment the list into smaller lists, copy the references from the given articles onto the list, etc. which is an editorial decision, not a matter for AfD. cab (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This particular list has no criteria for inclusion other than involvement in the NZ military, a very broad group given the hundreds of thousands who have been served in their armed forces. Leithp 08:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list itself was originally split from
    List of New Zealand people. As it gets larger, it can certainly be split into sublists itself. Also, implicit in EVERY list definition is the requirement that people on the list be notable; I strongly doubt that the hundreds of thousands of present and past service members in New Zealand are all notable. cab (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
- I can't spot the references to incomplete lists and redundancy in WP:CLS. Can you give me a pointer please? Leithp 08:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "These methods should not be considered to be in conflict with each other" ... "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap. Doing so may disrupt browsing by users who prefer the list system." etc. cab (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - this list was one of several recently created by the splitting up of the old (pre-category system)
List of New Zealanders which had become large and unbalanced. dramatic (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - this list is not a redundant copy of the mentioned category, as it doesn't have that category's failings: The category is the top level of a hierarchy of more than a dozen subcategories - the structure is not transparent, as you can only see two levels of a branch at any one time, and articles seem to be scattered randomly. With a little work, the list can overcome these issues, presenting all the information compactly in a single pageview. This is supported by the guidelines at
WP:CLS. dramatic (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep, bordering on speedy.
Our policies for lists and categories are quite clear about redundancy as being just fine, since categories and lists are two vastly different things with vastly different purposes. Someone really should write something in the deletion process page about lists and when not to delete them. Being left with 'incomplete', which isn't a valid deletion argument as it can be solved by improvement, this nomination has nothing upon which to stand. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Celarnor. Being incomplete isn't a valid reason to delete a list. Lists do not replace categories. --JamieS93 12:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. One question: does this list enhance Wikipedia's coverage of the topic? Lists shouldn't be maintained for the sake of having a list of X. It doesn't seem viable independent of the list it was split from: remerging this "modest" sub-page with
List of New Zealand people wouldn't be a profound loss to Wikipedia. SoLando (Talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, no legitimate grounds for deletion. It enhances the topic just as
List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: N-O, List of lawyers, List of Columbia University people, or any other notable list. MrPrada (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Good article
talk) 22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nomination - categories do a much better job than this kind of list. --
talk) 22:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Cab. archanamiya · talk 23:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - another instance of a list doing more than a category could. The two aren't always directly interchangeable. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question to nominator: Could you please explain precisely whay to think this specific list requires deletion: What differentiates it from all the other lists linked from
List of New Zealanders (or, for that matter, from those linked from Lists of Australians). dramatic (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

To reiterate my previous points: This list gives no specific criteria for inclusion, other than involvement in NZ's military (which, as I've said, covers hundreds of thousands of people), has very little information on the people involved, is poorly written and is covered well by categories. The fact that

other similar lists exist doesn't concern me, this was the one I happened to come across. I understand that some people above strongly advocate lists like these. Fine. However, until clear, limited, criteria for inclusion are provided and adequate information is given then this list is valueless IMO. Leithp 06:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Judging by your statements, I think you have a misconception of what lists are meant to be. I recommend going over

WP:CLN and WP:LISTS. Like other lists, this one includes (or should include; if it doesn't, it can be fixed, so it's not a valid argument in favor of deletion), per our policies on lists, only notable individuals who have been in the New Zealand military. It is not a mechanism to assert notability of those included, as that must be done on the articles that are within the lists. This helps keeps references out of lists and in the articles where they belong. It's a list. It isn't meant to include information about those involved, and is meant, like other lists, to be a collection of information about those included, it's just a list to say "these people did/have/do/are x"; much like a category, only able to be edited for readability by humans. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:33, 4 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.