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 all. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Canada[edit]

Outline of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

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

Useless page. WP:CFORK, for one, unnecessary duplication of extant Wikipedia content (Index of Canada-related articles, List of Canada-related topics by provinces and territories) for another. →ROUX ₪ 18:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This outline is substantially different from the two given links. It's a navigational page, and it serves its purpose well for those who choose to use this style of navigation. Deleting it because of your dislike for outlines isn't in the best interests of our readers (many of whom do not find it useless, as is evidenced by page view statistics), and the readers should always be our first priority, despite personal editorial preferences. -- œ^™ 19:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It looks to be very well organized and helpful in the manner it was intended. The outline is much easier to navigate then the Index of Canada-related articles that only list articles alphabetically. I would say the Index could go and leave the outline (but actually see that its nice to let our editors chose what style they would like to utilizes). As i would guess some like the index with ABC order and others like the Outline with TOPIC order. Moxy (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outline of knowledge#Outline of Canada and Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Outline of Canada.Moxy (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: as if the comments from editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outline of knowledge#Outline of Canada are in any doubt. This skates really close to WP:CANVASS. → ROUX ₪ 22:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note at the relevant wikiproject is in no way canvassing. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note at the wikiproject whose only reason for existence is to create these ridiculous pages, over any and all objections that have been raised, guarantees a flood of votes that are quite predictable. Notifying Wikiprojects which actually cover a subject area is quite a different animal; such Wikiprojects are dedicated to good content. The OOK wikiproject is dedicated to making and keeping outlines at all costs. → ROUX ₪ 01:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notice mentioned was posted at WP:CANADA, which is where I saw it. There's not enough people even visiting the WPOOK page for it to matter as "canvassing"; but any relevant WikiProject applies to what Quiddity has observed; perhaps WikiPRoject Lists and maybe WikProject Disambiguation should be notified too....Skookum1 (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per OE. These are navigational pages. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists, which widely rejected the notion that there was anything fundamentally wrong with "navigational" pages. Not all outlines are perfect (not all articles are perfect), but IDONTLIKEIT counts for nothing, and is akin to the "I hate infoboxes" perspective. (Personally, I dislike the "index" articles, unless they're maintained by a bot, but that's just me). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And right here we have the fundamental problem with these nonsense pages and the walled garden in which their proponents operate. Despite clear policy-based reasons given in the nomination, you persist on calling it WP:IDONTLIKEIT. → ROUX ₪ 22:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Outline" or rename to "List of Canada-related articles by topic". I previously supported deletion of the outline, but seeing the other two alternatives above, I see that this is a useful way of presenting the same content. However, the title of the article should be clear as to what the article is (a list), rather than a vague "outline" (which sounds, to me, like nothing more than the stamp of WP:OOK). I don't see any benefit to using the wiki-term "outline" rather than the simple English words "list of". -M.Nelson (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  PS, does anyone know why List of Canada-related topics by provinces and territories uses the word "topics" rather than "articles"? In my opinion, that one would be better off renamed to "articles". -M.Nelson (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1) The name "outline" is based on the standard type of Outline (summary) (see definitions #4 and #5 at wiktionary:outline), and also derived from the Propædia of which the core is titled "Outline of Knowledge". Plus, read the short History section at the RfC, to see that all these pages were originally titled "Foo basic topics", which some people objected to.

  2) The majority of these generalist lists were originally all grouped into List of topics, and List of basic topics (circa 2001-2005). See the Portal:Contents page, circa 2005. So most items that are a "list of articles" have been renamed or created after that period. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Since these are being governed by rules such as WP:LIST and discussions such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists, we should call it a list outright (furthermore, um, it is a list...). While there are WP policies guiding lists, there are no WP policies guiding "outlines". I've amended my !vote to say that while I support a list, I strictly oppose an "outline". -M.Nelson (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  See this section: there are dozens of Featured Lists that don't have the word "list" in their titles. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Your examples on that page of lists without "list of" are single articles, not entire categories of articles. By using the word "outline" we're creating a whole new category (or perhaps subset) of articles, distinct from WP:LIST etc. Outlines should not be distinct from any other navigational lists (as there is no policy guiding this new category), and there is no reason for the different wording that creates this distinction. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  They all used to have barely-distinguishable titles (Some still do. See: Lists of mathematics topics (a "list of lists", previously Featured), List of topics in mathematics (an "outline"), and List of mathematics articles (an "index"), which were heavily discussed a few months ago), and the effort to rename them as distinct groups has led to more awareness of their existence. Outlines (aka "basic topic lists") have existed since 2001, but the last few years of effort to improve and expand them, has led to some of this backlash.
  There are no guidelines or policies governing "indexes" or "glossaries" or "lists of lists" either, and a few editors also have strong negative perspectives towards those types of list. Only 1 editor has issues with the existence of "lists of lists", afaik
  Personally, I think some of them are a bad idea (eg Outline of Google), but this one, and some of the other outlines of major topics are educational by themselves, and unsurpassed as a navigational method through a topic (Eg. outline of cell biology, which was primarily created by User:Earthdirt a biologist/highschoolteacher). -- Quiddity (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In as much as I agree that these Outlines lists are nothing more than duplications of other lists, I'm well aware that actually getting one deleted is about as difficult as swimming up a waterfall. So, count this as the token agreement for Roux's position, at the very least. Resolute 20:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, there's overlap/duplication, but I much prefer the Outlines format to that used in List of Canada-related topics by provinces and territories. The Outline is a useful navigation assist - worth keeping. PKT(alk) 21:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the fact that there's this page of guidelines helps to support retaining it. PKT(alk) 22:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I like this essay better: Wikipedia:Delete the junk. (Yes, I know that essay is talking about a different specific scenario, but the title fits my opinion. In both cases, they are just essays, not guidelines or policies.) Resolute 22:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for finding the use of the page written by Outlines supporters to justify the existence of their hobby unpersuasive as to its lack of bias. → ROUX ₪ 23:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as WP:INFOBOX is written by editors who support those. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly irrelevant to this discussion. → ROUX ₪ 01:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's still an essay, the majority of which was written by one editor. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as duplication. If you prefer this form as a navigational assistance then do the hard work of getting community consensus so that there aren't three or four parallel methods with none of them up-to-date and three or four times the work to maintain them all. Also, Outline of Canada sounds like it has something to do with the shape of the borders.Dingo1729 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong keep There is no valid reason to delete any of the outlines, which serve the useful fucntion of organizing topics by subject/hierarchy and bear no similarity or duplication to alphabetical lists. An alphabetical list and a layout by topic area are two entirely different things. In helping with the Outline of British Columbia, the building of the hierarchy helped reveal holes in the coverage of British Columbia topics in ways any of the list pages referenced here cannot compete with - partly because certain topics were redlinked, indicating the need for said articles, which would not have been revealed by the alphabetical lists. For readers, also, they provide a condnsed overview of subject matter/articles that is not readily available on title articles like Canada or British Columbia. I've seen a lot sillier things tolerated on Wikipedia, whether original research confabulations or compilations of trivia, pass deletion discussion for no reason other than someone found them interesting, and someone else found them useful for linkability. This is far more than that; it's a digest of topics, not a list, and for people wanting to know the basics about Canada without having to wade through the main Canada article or surf categories, it's very very very useful. Point me to something that contains the "duplication" of what's on the Outline, I'll give you a banana. But don't point at one of the lists, because this isn't duplication; it's organization, not alphabetization.Skookum1 (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looks just like how other Outline pages are formatted, which is different from the two other pages suggested. It is also named like other outline articles. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Looks like' is irrelevant. 'Contains the same information as is what matters here. → ROUX ₪ 07:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I mention below, I don't think Outlines should exist in Articlespace (or Indices for that matter) 76.66.203.138 (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think all Outline articles should be moved to another namespace, like Portal: or Wikipedia: or a new "Outline:" namespace. And all index articles as well (Portal, Wikipedia or "Index:" ) 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Editors have discussed that, on various occasions, most recently at section 2.19.2.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists. Any idea that tries to address "these aren't proper articles, damnit!", needs to account for "lists of lists" (eg Lists of people) and "year articles" (eg 1957) and glossaries (eg Severe weather terminology (United States)). More background and examples are here. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually they don't. Moving the goalposts again; this is an AFD for a specific page.→ ROUX ₪ 00:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion How about moving all "Outline" articles to the Book-namespace? If a "Book:" is a list of articles in an order that can be printed to create a book, isn't that similar to what an Outline lists? 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  A good idea, that I'd previously hoped might work, and I did investigate. However, outlines are generally far too large. See details on the general problem here. I had even used the Canada topic as a specific example, see Book_talk:Canada#Size_estimate. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as duplication AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 08:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a perfectly reasonable outline as it is, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge is a strong movement. This AfD is uncalled for. Davemnt (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a member of Wikipedia's set of outlines. Wikipedia has an outline on every nation of the world. Please keep the set intact! The country outlines share a common format, with the material on each country presented in the same order, to provide a familiarity for ease of browsing (the second country outline you browse uses the same format as the first one you browsed), and to make it easy to compare countries. There would be an awkward gap in the set if we deleted this page, not just because we'd be missing a country, but because a branch with sub-branches would be gone. On the knowledge tree, Outline of Canada fits between Outline of North America and the outlines for the provinces of Canada. So far, for the provinces we have Outline of British Columbia and Outline of Saskatchewan. If you delete this outline, it would be like having the 50 outlines on the American states without having an Outline of the United States. Plus, there are some other reasons for keeping the Outline of Canada:
  • In Wikipedia, it's the most comprehensive list on Canada
  • It provides the best topical overview of Canada on Wikipedia, and maybe even on the World Wide Web.
  • It is well on its way to being completed. For examples of well-refined country outlines, see Outline of Japan, Outline of Iceland, Outline of Thailand, and Outline of the United Kingdom (to name just a few).
  • It has editors dedicated to making it even better.
  • It's like a table of contents for Canada on Wikipedia, and part of the outline subsystem of Wikipedia's content navigation system.

The Transhumanist 22:24, 8 November 2010 (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.