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. MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospice-related topics[edit]

List of hospice-related topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article doesn't seem to have any function beyond a category, nor any real contact. I have created a Category:Hospice , and asked on the talk page for this article if there is any objection to deletion. Author has been notified. jbolden1517^Talk 03:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Author for the article and author for the content are evidently different people. I've put a message on the talk page of the article where this content originally came from notifying them about the AFD. jbolden1517^Talk 15:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lists and categories are complementary schemes of organization. DGG (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This list does not provide any information or function the category can't and it is unlikely it will in the future. (Actually it seems more like an editor's list of topics to watch and work on. I wouldn't oppose a userfication if someone asked.) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The majority of the articles are already categorize under Hospice. --J.Mundo (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "List of foo-related topics" is not complementary to a category; it is redundant with it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep In general, lists are extremely useful in addition to categories (see WP:CSL), but this particular list doesn't seem well thought out or coordinated. —G716 <^T·_C> 22:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, "related topic" is different from "subtopic". Rules99 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The list doesn't do anything the category doesn't. Themfromspace (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because the category is full of inappropriate topics. Rules99 (talk) 08:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if the category is filled with inappropriate topics, just remove the cat, this is reduncent to a category. Secret ^account 18:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's really no point talking to you people is there. Rules99 (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • People hear you, they just don't agree. Lists are for coherent topics, categories are for collections of related subtopics. The disagreement here is either that people feel that these are all related subtopics and thus appropriate category material, or that this list falls into the gulf between lists and categories and thus serves little purpose. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MacGyverMagic and others. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:59, 20 February 2009 (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.