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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Denmark-related articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Similar pages to this one have been deleted recently. This page is not a thorough index of Denmark-related articles, since there are less than 40 article links, and there has no sign of expansion. Templates such as Template:Denmark topics already serve the purpose of this page and are used on appropriate articles and the Outline of Denmark article already provides a summary of Denmark in a factfile form, rendering this article redundant. The only substantial article linking here is the Denmark article, and that includes that template mentioned above.

It's also worth noting that this article was viewed just 412 times last month, with an average of 15 views daily, so it hasn't been of much interest. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 16:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 29. Snotbot  t • c »  16:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep – This is a discriminate list article, and per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Also, WP:IMPERFECT (Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required) is applicable in this case. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I've significantly expanded the article since the time of it's post here at AfD. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that we should keep this article, but I wonder whether its title should be changed to "List of Denmark-related articles" which would make it more consistent with other articles in Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• A little known fact about Wikipedia: Like other encyclopaedias it has an index. It's at Portal:Contents/Indexes, and this page is linked from it. Uncle G (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice, a portal that indexes index articles! Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 02:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the nom does not really give any reasons, other than it is obscure and there was some other unknown precedent. I need to be convinced that this is truly duplicative and wasteful of bytes. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2012 (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.