Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of headphone manufacturers (2nd nomination)

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of headphone manufacturers

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Previously deleted in 2009 and recreated in 2014 as basically a copy of Category:Headphones manufacturers. Does not seem to meet WP:NLIST. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete duplicates the category, and I cannot see how it could be meaningfully expanded. Also bordering on indiscriminate given that essentially anyone who has ever made audio equipment has made headphones, plus every computer accessory manufacturer after about 2000. Mangoe (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – An entire article consisting exclusively of blue links to Wikipedia articles is certainly not an indiscriminate directory, not at all. Rather, the article serves as a functional navigational aid for our public readership per WP:LISTPURP. Furthermore, the article entirely qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Headphones manufacturers. As a comparison, the category is much weaker in terms of informing the public with an encyclopedia:

The article has received 6,889 page views in the last thirty days as of this post.
The category page has received a scant 423 page views in the last thirty days.

– WP:READERS learn from articles more than categories. Articles that pass WP:NOTDUP do not also have to pass WP:NLIST. If this were the case, then people would have to only use cateories to learn. Since many less readers use categories, deleting such lists as this only defeats Wikipedia's purpose as an online encyclopedia to aid learning. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Articles that pass WP:NOTDUP do not also have to pass WP:NLIST. I don't know where you got that from. Every standalone list in mainspace needs to pass WP:NLIST, obviously. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, which is cited by WP:CLN, states as much. Pagestats do not factor into deletion discussions, so that argument is null too. Anyone voting to keep should base their arguments on the criteria laid out at WP:NLIST, no more and no less. Nobody has done so thus far. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Throast: See my comment below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category:Headphones manufacturers exist. I didn't think much of this list at first glance, but seeing someone else wanted to keep it I looked more closely. A lot of these companies are known for making this one thing, so its a legitimate list. Dream Focus 06:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to same as Category:Headphones manufacturers, seperate article for the same seems to be not needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranesh Ravikumar (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates explains that you can have a category and a list for the same thing, and shouldn't delete one because you prefer the other. Dream Focus 20:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I want to clarify that I did not nominate the article for deletion because I prefer categories over lists. I provided that info for context surrounding the first deletion discussion. I nominated because I fail to see this list passing WP:NLIST, Wikipedia's list-specific notability guideline. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pranesh Ravikumar: Note that per WP:NOTDUP, "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Essentially, your argument does not qualify deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - don't see how this passes WP:NLIST.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It states right at WP:LISTN that "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." It's made rather clear at WP:LISTN that navigational lists are typically retained, and the section of the guideline page even links to WP:LISTPURP, to provide further clarification. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's still no cure-all for AfDs of such lists, and thank god for that; it's just an observation of common practice, which is not necessarily best practice. The notability test is vastly important in limiting the otherwise endless scope of the project. I don't think we should be selective in its application in mainspace. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, it is very clearly implied at WP:LISTN that navigational lists typically are not required to also meet WP:LISTN. It says right there that such navigational lists are typically retained on Wikipedia. There's a reason why it's worded that way there; Wikipedia relies in part upon such lists so WP:READERS can navigate the encyclopedia more efficiently and functionally. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NLIST. The statement of "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." doesn't appear to support that WP:NLIST can be ignored, and the "are often kept" part is merely an observation. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:48, 23 October 2022 (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.