Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of Florence

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2024 September 20.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Arguments that the outline is redundant to the article and category carry the day. Yes, outlines are a legit kind of article but redundancy (more precisely: content forking) is also a valid reason for deletion per the deletion policy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Florence

[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)

This is a link collection stripped of actual content and information found in article for Florence. It is therefore just a content fork that does not impart much useful information. An attempt to redirect it to the actual article was reverted so bringing for deletion discussion. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (just like most outlines). The purpose of this page is much better served by on the one hand the article Florence, and on the other hand the Category:Florence, which isn't static but up-to-date (or at least more up-to-date). For example the outline lists 2 streets, the relevant category lists 4: the outline lists one hospital, the relevant category lists 5 of those. Fram (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Outlines are perfectly legitimate and the only rationale given here is that this is an outline article. This daft trolling of User:The Transhumanist's contributions is getting tiresome. Waggers TALK 13:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been years of pushback against his mass creation of outlines. I can dig up deletions of outlines from just this month - and so can you. Just check his talkpage notices. This editor should be fully page creation topic banned for creating thousands of low quality useless pages and then failing to clean up his messes. Legacypac (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is merely Florence with the context stripped out and unnecessarily duplicative of the category as well. TTH also wrote WP:OUTLINE, and it is circular reasoning that his own pages are justified by his own information page. Reywas92^Talk 17:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. (I'm also one for nuking outlines in general, but that should be for an RfC.) John M Wolfson (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's absolutely nothing wrong with outlines and I fear this is going to be the next step in the great war of deletion, since every single vote here is WP:ILIKEIT versus WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and AfC is not an RfC. Categories aren't really meant for readers, there's too much information here for a template, and this is a useful collection of links related to an important topic. SportingFlyer T·C 03:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 03:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 09:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outlines that simply reproduce the article content with removed context are unencyclopedic, WP:REDUNDANT. FOARP (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what's actually going on here, though - the outline contains a number of links that are not included in the Florence article, and categories aren't well suited for navigational purposes. As a result, it's not actually redundant or even a true "content fork" as it contains more navigational information to topics than can be found in the Florence article. SportingFlyer T·C 10:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"categories aren't well suited for navigational purposes."? That's a new one. It's much easier to navigate through the subcategories for Florence than to find something in this outline. Would a museum be included in "History" or "Culture"? I would guess "culture". Oops, "History" it is then? Oops again, WTF, "museums" are part of the "geography" section, right... Now, in the category, you go to "culture", and there you get "museums". Or you go to "Buildings and structures in Florence" and find it there as well. Of course, in a category tree, you can place things which logically belong in two or three groups in all of them. Fram (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Genuinely useful links that are not included in the Florence article should be added to it by merging this outline. This is the fundamental problem with outlines - if they contain the same links they're duplicates, if they contain different content they become forks. Either way they cause confusion as readers have to trawl through two articles instead of one. They don't aid navigation because the infobox and table of contents in the main article already provide convenient access to information.----Pontificalibus 08:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates: "Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." There's no actual deletion rationale here, and adding all of these links to the primary article wouldn't necessarily be conducive to navigation. SportingFlyer T·C 09:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters of Outlines are adamant that they are NOT lists, or categories for that matter, so why is a guideline about the handling of lists/categories relevant to a discussion about an outline? FOARP (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's very incorrect. Outlines are lists. Your link shows outlines are not lists of items. And in any case, there's still no good deletion rationale that's been shown here, as it's not an unnecessarily duplicative content fork. I'd be inclined to vote delete if the outline were smaller or the topic wasn't large enough to have an outline on. I'd recommend an RfC if there truly is a problem with outlines as a whole. Furthermore, feminist un-redirected the outline with the comment "Outlines are fine, take this to AfD..." and Cote d'Azur, a prominent contributor to the article, has thanked me for two edits on this page without !voting. I've used noping so to not canvass, but I don't think this as snowy of a delete as it currently seems. SportingFlyer T·C 23:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Outlines are lists. Your link shows outlines are not lists of items" - This is some Class-A sophistry right here. Either they are lists or they aren't, but there is no such thing as a list that does not list items. FOARP (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to hear how it's both fallacious and relevant to this deletion discussion in general, considering a "list of items" on Wikipedia is defined as "List of x in y," whereas outlines are lists that can contain "lists of items" but are themselves lists of general consequence. SportingFlyer T·C 11:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Reywas92, or merge per Pontificalibus. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 21:50, 04 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this forky attempt at a Wiki article. Wikipedia is not Ponte Vecchio. -The Gnome (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2019 (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.