- 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 redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Mogadiscio. postdlf ( talk) 16:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Somalia
- List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Somalia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A list of one item is not a list. This was deprodded with no rationale other than "potentially controversial", although I seriously doubt this will be anything but a SNOW delete. Assuming it is, I'll mass-nominate the other one-diocese lists that were deprodded. ~ Rob Talk 14:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy close WP:NPASR No argument for deletion. No WP:BEFORE preparation.
STEM skills would help, too.Unscintillating ( talk) 15:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)- I'm confused with, well, everything you just said. How does
WP:NPASR, which relates to discussions that have received no comments after seven days, have any bearing on this discussion?
WP:BEFORE has been done for this nomination; no other dioceses exist to expand the list. And "a list that links to one article isn't useful" is certainly a valid deletion rationale. Consider potential lists such as
List of teams called the Green Bay Packers and
List of presidents with the last name Obama and consider whether we really want to set the precedent for creating an article which has the sole purpose of listing a set of one. How does that benefit our readers? And a vague personal attack on my STEM skills is perhaps not the most accurate way to attack someone who holds a degree in pure mathematics and is studying in a math-heavy PhD program. ~
Rob
Talk 15:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you've ever heard of an "empty list", then it follows that a list has zero or more elements. [1] provides a reference. The last time I was involved in such a discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airlines of Greenland, I found 1.3 Million GHits on the term "empty list". The next link is to WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL, which is identified as an argument to avoid at deletion discussions. "It is not useful" is not a policy-based argument for deletion, unless you invoke WP:IAR. Sorry about the confusion with the link WP:NPASR, but NPASR means "No Prejudice Against Speedy Renomination". The point remains that a speedy close or speedy keep remains in order. Unscintillating ( talk) 20:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- And to answer your question, "do we want list articles with one entry", I posted in the Greenland-airline AfD that I'm fine with list articles that have zero entries. The result of that AfD was "keep".
Unscintillating (
talk) 20:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
-
WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL says that saying "It's not useful" is an argument to avoid when you don't give a reason why it's not useful. I have given such a reason. An empty set is a set, but that doesn't mean we need to have empty sets on Wikipedia, given that they serve no encyclopedic purpose. The other AfD you linked was a rather poor reading of consensus, given that all arguments for inclusion were simply claims that
other stuff exists, and such arguments are extremely weak. Further, it's from 2011, and
consensus can change. When all is said and done, this is an encyclopedia. If no editors can articulate a single reason why an article benefits our readers, even a niche group of readers, then it should not be kept. Also, please note that
WP:SAL, a guideline, states that lists are "series of items formatted into a list". Note the plural on items. Also, if this were newly created, it would be eligible for speedy deletion as
WP:A10, since a list of one with nothing outside of a link to the one article duplicates the information of that article. ~
Rob
Talk 20:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Empty sets are not empty lists. You've not established any technical reason to begin a discussion of empty sets. If you know the difference, then the argument that "empty sets serve no encyclopedic purpose" is indistinguishable from a red herring. Unscintillating ( talk) 11:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
-
WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL says that saying "It's not useful" is an argument to avoid when you don't give a reason why it's not useful. I have given such a reason. An empty set is a set, but that doesn't mean we need to have empty sets on Wikipedia, given that they serve no encyclopedic purpose. The other AfD you linked was a rather poor reading of consensus, given that all arguments for inclusion were simply claims that
other stuff exists, and such arguments are extremely weak. Further, it's from 2011, and
consensus can change. When all is said and done, this is an encyclopedia. If no editors can articulate a single reason why an article benefits our readers, even a niche group of readers, then it should not be kept. Also, please note that
WP:SAL, a guideline, states that lists are "series of items formatted into a list". Note the plural on items. Also, if this were newly created, it would be eligible for speedy deletion as
WP:A10, since a list of one with nothing outside of a link to the one article duplicates the information of that article. ~
Rob
Talk 20:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm confused with, well, everything you just said. How does
WP:NPASR, which relates to discussions that have received no comments after seven days, have any bearing on this discussion?
WP:BEFORE has been done for this nomination; no other dioceses exist to expand the list. And "a list that links to one article isn't useful" is certainly a valid deletion rationale. Consider potential lists such as
List of teams called the Green Bay Packers and
List of presidents with the last name Obama and consider whether we really want to set the precedent for creating an article which has the sole purpose of listing a set of one. How does that benefit our readers? And a vague personal attack on my STEM skills is perhaps not the most accurate way to attack someone who holds a degree in pure mathematics and is studying in a math-heavy PhD program. ~
Rob
Talk 15:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to the diocese article as a plausible search term, given the existence of lists for a large number of other countries. Siuenti ( talk) 18:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- OOPS Given the failure of my WP:CFD nomination for single diocese countries in Africa, I have been proceeding with page re-directs for articles like this. I'll stop now and let this discussion develop. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 18:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Africa#Episcopal Conference of Somalia. List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Africa already contains the equivalent information for over 30 other African countries, but not for Somalia. The section heading I am suggesting as a target does not currently exist, but carrying through the merger should create it. It makes sense to have a list from which readers can find out that there is only one diocese in Somalia but, given the structure of the target article, they can do so just as easily from there. PWilkinson ( talk) 17:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. A list of one isn't much of a list. Niteshift36 ( talk) 03:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Mogadiscio to round out Category:Lists of Roman Catholic dioceses by country and per WP:CHEAP. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Mogadiscio Laurel Lodged ( talk) 08:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Mogadiscio. postdlf ( talk) 16:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Somalia
- List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Somalia ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A list of one item is not a list. This was deprodded with no rationale other than "potentially controversial", although I seriously doubt this will be anything but a SNOW delete. Assuming it is, I'll mass-nominate the other one-diocese lists that were deprodded. ~ Rob Talk 14:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy close WP:NPASR No argument for deletion. No WP:BEFORE preparation.
STEM skills would help, too.Unscintillating ( talk) 15:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)- I'm confused with, well, everything you just said. How does
WP:NPASR, which relates to discussions that have received no comments after seven days, have any bearing on this discussion?
WP:BEFORE has been done for this nomination; no other dioceses exist to expand the list. And "a list that links to one article isn't useful" is certainly a valid deletion rationale. Consider potential lists such as
List of teams called the Green Bay Packers and
List of presidents with the last name Obama and consider whether we really want to set the precedent for creating an article which has the sole purpose of listing a set of one. How does that benefit our readers? And a vague personal attack on my STEM skills is perhaps not the most accurate way to attack someone who holds a degree in pure mathematics and is studying in a math-heavy PhD program. ~
Rob
Talk 15:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you've ever heard of an "empty list", then it follows that a list has zero or more elements. [1] provides a reference. The last time I was involved in such a discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airlines of Greenland, I found 1.3 Million GHits on the term "empty list". The next link is to WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL, which is identified as an argument to avoid at deletion discussions. "It is not useful" is not a policy-based argument for deletion, unless you invoke WP:IAR. Sorry about the confusion with the link WP:NPASR, but NPASR means "No Prejudice Against Speedy Renomination". The point remains that a speedy close or speedy keep remains in order. Unscintillating ( talk) 20:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- And to answer your question, "do we want list articles with one entry", I posted in the Greenland-airline AfD that I'm fine with list articles that have zero entries. The result of that AfD was "keep".
Unscintillating (
talk) 20:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
-
WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL says that saying "It's not useful" is an argument to avoid when you don't give a reason why it's not useful. I have given such a reason. An empty set is a set, but that doesn't mean we need to have empty sets on Wikipedia, given that they serve no encyclopedic purpose. The other AfD you linked was a rather poor reading of consensus, given that all arguments for inclusion were simply claims that
other stuff exists, and such arguments are extremely weak. Further, it's from 2011, and
consensus can change. When all is said and done, this is an encyclopedia. If no editors can articulate a single reason why an article benefits our readers, even a niche group of readers, then it should not be kept. Also, please note that
WP:SAL, a guideline, states that lists are "series of items formatted into a list". Note the plural on items. Also, if this were newly created, it would be eligible for speedy deletion as
WP:A10, since a list of one with nothing outside of a link to the one article duplicates the information of that article. ~
Rob
Talk 20:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Empty sets are not empty lists. You've not established any technical reason to begin a discussion of empty sets. If you know the difference, then the argument that "empty sets serve no encyclopedic purpose" is indistinguishable from a red herring. Unscintillating ( talk) 11:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
-
WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL says that saying "It's not useful" is an argument to avoid when you don't give a reason why it's not useful. I have given such a reason. An empty set is a set, but that doesn't mean we need to have empty sets on Wikipedia, given that they serve no encyclopedic purpose. The other AfD you linked was a rather poor reading of consensus, given that all arguments for inclusion were simply claims that
other stuff exists, and such arguments are extremely weak. Further, it's from 2011, and
consensus can change. When all is said and done, this is an encyclopedia. If no editors can articulate a single reason why an article benefits our readers, even a niche group of readers, then it should not be kept. Also, please note that
WP:SAL, a guideline, states that lists are "series of items formatted into a list". Note the plural on items. Also, if this were newly created, it would be eligible for speedy deletion as
WP:A10, since a list of one with nothing outside of a link to the one article duplicates the information of that article. ~
Rob
Talk 20:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm confused with, well, everything you just said. How does
WP:NPASR, which relates to discussions that have received no comments after seven days, have any bearing on this discussion?
WP:BEFORE has been done for this nomination; no other dioceses exist to expand the list. And "a list that links to one article isn't useful" is certainly a valid deletion rationale. Consider potential lists such as
List of teams called the Green Bay Packers and
List of presidents with the last name Obama and consider whether we really want to set the precedent for creating an article which has the sole purpose of listing a set of one. How does that benefit our readers? And a vague personal attack on my STEM skills is perhaps not the most accurate way to attack someone who holds a degree in pure mathematics and is studying in a math-heavy PhD program. ~
Rob
Talk 15:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to the diocese article as a plausible search term, given the existence of lists for a large number of other countries. Siuenti ( talk) 18:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- OOPS Given the failure of my WP:CFD nomination for single diocese countries in Africa, I have been proceeding with page re-directs for articles like this. I'll stop now and let this discussion develop. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 18:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Africa#Episcopal Conference of Somalia. List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Africa already contains the equivalent information for over 30 other African countries, but not for Somalia. The section heading I am suggesting as a target does not currently exist, but carrying through the merger should create it. It makes sense to have a list from which readers can find out that there is only one diocese in Somalia but, given the structure of the target article, they can do so just as easily from there. PWilkinson ( talk) 17:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. A list of one isn't much of a list. Niteshift36 ( talk) 03:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Mogadiscio to round out Category:Lists of Roman Catholic dioceses by country and per WP:CHEAP. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Mogadiscio Laurel Lodged ( talk) 08:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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.