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 delete. —Kurykh 01:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of listings magazines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a list of products, it has no encyclopedic content, and by its own scope never will. This is an indiscriminant collection of information and seems to be exactly what Wikipedia is not. Until(1 == 2) 16:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Potentially useful, but I do see the indiscriminate information argument coming into force here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, like Category:Listings magazines, but better. If this is an indiscriminate topic, why is that not up for deletion too? Kappa 22:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Gee, the category makes sense, the article does not. A category simply indexes articles together, this article serves no greater purpose. Until(1 == 2) 00:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't make sense to know what country a magazine is published in? Kappa 15:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I imagine that information would be in the article about the magazine. Until(1 == 2) 15:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well yeah I'm sure you love randomly clicking on obscure article titles until you find something you like, but real people have less time to waste than you seem to. Kappa 16:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would imagine you could simply search for something you like. OSborn^arf 06:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How would you imagine I would search for old magazines? Kappa 23:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As for time periods, you could search for terms like "magazine 1950 50's" etc. OSborn^arf 00:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um that doesn't seem to work... perhaps you could give me a specific example of what I should be typing and where? Kappa 03:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a fairly indiscriminate list of information that has little value when isolated from each publication's article. Any reader who wishes to seak out this particular information would simply search for the magazines themselves. A category is one thing, but lists are quite another, and get treated accordingly. Adrian M. H. 22:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes using a category they would simply search fifteen different articles until they find the one they want. Kappa 00:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, when you look at a category it shows all the items. While it may be useful, this is an encyclopedia, not an index. Until(1 == 2) 14:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um please try to follow the discussion. When you look at a category it lists all the items without anything to distinguish them, so you have to click through all of them to find whichever is relevant to you. If this is "not an index" why are category lists allowed at all? Kappa 17:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am following things very well thank you, I think it is more that we disagree than me being confused. This page is in the "article" space, categories are in the "category" space. There are different inclusion standards in article space, than in category space. This contains no information not present in other articles. Until(1 == 2) 18:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So you are going to waste our time and frustrating us to preserve the purity of your "space", which is something we should care about because...? Kappa 19:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ....Until(1 == 2) 19:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you are wasting our time and frustrating us for a reason you can't explain, or can't be bother to type. Kappa 19:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Who is "our"? You are the only one complaining, please assume good faith with me. I am not going to bother repeating myself, but I have explained myself clearly. Until(1 == 2) 19:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Our" is readers looking for articles. Kappa 00:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets two of the purposes in WP:LIST guidelines. It provides some information beyond the name of the magazine (location, and years of operation), and it serves a navigational purpose. Although there is some overlap with the corresponding category, I would not call it redundant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter 13:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete and replace it with Category:American Listings Magazines and Category:British Listings Magazines and so on? Corpx 19:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• StrongWeak Delete assuming list really does not grow to violate WP:NOT#INFO; I'd also like to note to closing admin that the person primarily for the list is the one who created the page. Indiscriminate collection of information. You could simply just add and add and add names and links to it. To complete, it would have to have every single TV Guide, Job list thing, Classified sections, etc. As for the years of operation and location, I don't think we really need an article for that. Corpx has a good idea, perhaps that would work? OSborn^arf 21:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How the fuck is a category different? You could "could simply just add and add and add" articles to it Kappa 00:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Because, to be listed in an category, an article has to exist. People can add any non-notable magazine to a list. (and can we remain civil here plz?) Corpx 00:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All the entries on the list currently have articles, so you are claiming this is an "indiscriminate collection of information" on the basis that someone "could" more easily add something to it? Kappa 01:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me? For the indiscriminate collection of information bit, yes, that is correct. In current form, the list is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The only other information on the list page is the locations (could possibly be fixed by Corpx's idea) and the dates. The main problem is the list can balloon indefinitely to be reeeeeally big. Thanks, OSborn^arf 06:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC) (P.S. It appears that Kappa created the article in the first place, and has had a history of profanity. Just a friendly reminder that you don't need to use curse words to get your point across. ;))[reply]

• So your "strong delete" is not based on the assertion that this *is* an indiscriminate collection of information, but that someone *might* edit it so that it was. We must pre-emptively delete it in case that happens. Kappa 23:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I see you have no intention of recognizing why I am saying Strong Delete; ah well. Anyways: The criterion for inclusion is very thin. This is for the most part rather redundant with the category. The only information is the dates and some basic information about them (most of their names are pretty self-explanatory) and of course location, which could be replaced by Corpx's idea, and could be expanded to "Magazines that ran in the 1950's". Thanks, OSborn^arf 00:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes the current criterion for inclusion is effectively "included in the category". That could be made explicit if you feel it's in imminent danger of ballooning to infinity. You seem to be proposing a lot of different categories... for example, what categories would City Life (1983-2005 based in Manchester, UK) fall into? Kappa 05:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumably Listings Magazines in The United Kingdom? I see what you mean: That would be a lot of categories to do "... in the 1980/1990/2000s"... Still, the problem remains that pretty much every city has their own or two listing magazine for things like classifieds, jobs. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this ... civilly, though) Thanks, OSborn^arf 01:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK let's assume there are a large number of notable local listing magazines in the world and someone makes articles for all of them. That would certainly overwhelm the current list. The contents of a category like Listings magazines in the United Kingdom would look like this:
• The Crack (magazine)
• City Life (Magazine)
• City Limits
• The Crack (magazine)
• City Life (Magazine)
• Due South Magazine
• etc

You will note that these things don't necessarily have self-explanatory titles. There would be a desperate need for a List of listing magazines in the United Kingdom which looked like this:

• The Crack (Northeast England)
• City Life (1983-2005) based in Manchester
• City Limits (1981-1993) Covering Greater London
• Due South Magazine (1983-1991) based in Southampton
• The List (1985) Covering Edinburgh and Glasgow

...which is what exists now as a subset of the current list. Kappa 02:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ya Kappa, don't get nasty just because someone disagrees with you, different people have different opinions. Until(1 == 2) 00:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are wasting people's time and frustrating them for reasons you can't explain, or can't be bothered to type, you can expect those defending them to feel frustration and anger too. Kappa 01:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ... Until(1 == 2) 02:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are here as a troll, congratulations you are doing a great job. Kappa 03:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Settle down, this is a content dispute. No need to take it personally. Please try not to resort to name calling. The topic of discussion is the article, not me. Until(1 == 2) 03:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "..." is not a very helpful contribution to a content dispute. Kappa 05:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A useful list ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But the category serves the same purpose, does it not? OSborn^arf 06:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - We could have an article about this subject, but it would need to be comprehensive, include what was being listed and where the magazine sold. As it stands, I do not believe this article is suitable for Wikipedia. Cedars 08:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instantly making it comprehensive is impossible, but it will become more so as wikipedia grows and more articles are added. Currently it's just as comprehensive as the category, although I supposed I could add some red links to it. It does give what is listed and where they are sold, but I've made that more explicit now. Kappa 15:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you going to argue with every delete? Until(1 == 2) 17:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• When a delete vote says "include where the magazine is sold" etc and the article already does that, I will point that out. Kappa 17:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• With regard to "argue with every delete", open-minded listophobes can normally be talked out of their position, because if you get them to follow their logic they end up saying ridiculous things like 'you could search for terms like "magazine 1950 50's'. Of course, if a less open-minded listophobe refuses to participate in the discussion because of laziness, an inability to follow it or whatever, that presents a problem. Kappa 21:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me? Let's all remain civil here -- Thanks, OSborn^arf 01:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Kappa was just asked to be civil higher on the page. I am pretty sure he is aware of the policy, but a reminder does seem needed. You think we can do this without name calling? Until(1 == 2) 12:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "We" aren't doing anything... you have abandoned the discussion in the face of a question you can or won't answer, and your further participation here is entirely devoted to comments about me. Kappa 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete as per WP:NOT#INFO. Suggest replacing with a category attached to relevant magazines wikipages.Saganaki- 04:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where in WP:NOT does it say we can't have structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles? Kappa 06:15, 12 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.