Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dental organizations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. m.o.p 02:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of dental organizations

[edit]
List of dental organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. JIP | Talk 07:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The idea of NOTDIR is that we don't act as a yellow pages, providing telephone numbers, prices and commercial how-to info of that sort. This is just a list of professional dental bodies such as the British Dental Association and so performs the normal list function of enabling navigation and browsing in the manner of a contents page or index which are normal features of an encyclopedia. Warden (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a very narrow interpretation of NOTDIR. The spirit of NOTDIR is to avoid these kind of lists. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Lists of organizations which indicates that we have hundreds of lists of organisations. The relevant section of WP:NOTDIR is "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings.". This case is nothing like these examples. If you think the policy applies then please cite the exact text which seems relevant. Warden (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first point is the nullified WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Like I have already stated, it goes against the spirit of the policy rather than a particular policy point. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFF is not nullified - please read it. If one can point to hundreds of similar articles, and we can, then this is a valid logical argument. The idea that we should delete this list but not List of medical organisations, say, is logically absurd. Warden (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The links in this article next to its entries consists of many primary sources, which serves to verify information in the list. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article doesn't qualify for deletion under any of the eight points of WP:NOTDIR, and the nominator doesn't delineate which part of WP:NOTDIR is being referred to. Rather, this is a discriminate, focused list that is useful to learn about global dental organizations, and a useful addition to Wikipedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I have already stated, it goes against the spirit of the policy esp WP:LINKFARM. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because you say something doesn't make it true. The example given is for fansites, it not meant to keep encyclopedic list of educational content like this one from existing. Dream Focus 19:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The spirit of WP:NOTDIR is that we should not include directory information such as addresses and telephone numbers, not that we shouldn't have lists. If your main objection is that this is a link farm then just get rid of the objectionable links by editing, but, anyway, only a minority of the entries have external links. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dental organizations are quite notable, and it thus encyclopedic to know the names of all of them by country. Dream Focus 19:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per basic common sense, which should be applied before looking for some tangentially-related policies or guidelines and invoking them on the basis of their titles rather than what they actually say and mean. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while the standard for inclusion on a list is to be important enough that notability could be shown by a Wikipedia article, since these are all national organizations, at the highest level for their country in the particular branch of their profession, an article could indeed be written for all of them. Phil is right that this is common sense, and the way in which it is common sense fall perfectly well into the Wikipedia guidelines. NOTDIR is only relevant when the items would not be notable. Tbhidsis the start, from which articles can grow. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 1 December 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_dental_organizations&oldid=1138008957"