Index of underwater divers: Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 12:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Lists of people ,  and Lists .  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 12:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep .  WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply as the index is a list of actual Wikipedia articles about people who are notable for some aspect of their diving activities , not just any notable people who happen to be occasional divers.  It is an index, which is an easy way to find an article by alphabetical listing, not a category tree, which is an appalling way to find an article alphabetically, due to subcategories, which break the alphabetical listing up, and Wikipedia categories are full of inappropriate categorisations, making them even more ineffective.  Categories have their functions, but they are not the only accepted method.  Indexes are an broadly accepted navigation tool on Wkipedia, and have been so for a long time.  They are not to be deprecated at the whim of a small group without first going to the community with an appropriate RfC.  Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 18:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, I notice that WP:WikiProject Indexes has not been notified.  · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 18:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Feel free to notify them, but there isn't an easy deletion sorting for them, which is the way I've notified all the other places.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That does not look like a very good reason to fail to notify them, There are tags on the talk page for interested and affected projects.  · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 11:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep .  The nomination is invalid.  Lists of articles are not directories, otherwise, we would not have categories, lists, outlines, indexes, navigation footers, navigation sidebars, etc.  Nominator has also based deletion on the grounds that the page is a list.  Lists (including indexes) are an acceptable article type.  Redundancy between navigation pages is also acceptable, and is covered in WP:CLN , while the acceptability of distinct page types on the same subject is covered in WP:DIFFFORKS .  Aside from the erroneous policy citation, nominator has based his deletion argument on his own opinion ("Don't need"), rather than on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  The article in question was developed in full accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Please speedy close this invalid deletion discussion.  — The Transhumanist 00:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In what way does its existence benefit readers?  It's an overly long index that duplicates better ways of storing this information.  Not speedy keep eligible, as the nomination is valid even if you disagree with it.  Joseph 2302 ( talk ) 11:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please link to the explanation of how it is "overly long", then you might consider comparing its length with an index from a print encyclopedia, even quite a small one.  There are no other ways that the information in it is stored that are reasonably accessible, as you would notice if you compare what all is available on Wikipedia with what is in this index.  I know this because it was not easy, and a lot of work to compile.  If you can show me these other ways and they actually provide the same information, without requiring a complicated database search, I would be delighted to know.  Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 11:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Doesn't need its own index, is better supported as a series of categories.  Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY .  Let'srun ( talk ) 15:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In what way do you claim it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY , Please be specific if you wish to be taken seriously by the closer.  Also explain how WP:NOTDIRECTORY is applicable in this case.  The rest of your opinions have been rebutted above.  Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 11:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and Rename to List of underwater divers Geysirhead ( talk ) 09:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is not just a list of underwater divers, it is an actual index to underwater divers notable for being underwater divers and having a Wikipedia article.  There are many articles on people who also happen to be underwater divers, but are not notable for that, and are listed in the category tree, that do not belong in this index.  Cheers,· · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 11:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Perhaps I should mention that there are literally millions of underwater divers, a very small part of whom are ever likely to have a Wikipedia article, and an even smaller number who are likely to ever be notable for their diving activities or experiences.  The current scope of the index is relatively tiny in comparison with the scope of this proposal, which would actually be relatively well represented by categories.  Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 13:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Related to Geysirhead's comment, the list is more annotated than most indexes, although not uniquely so.  Regardless, indexes are list articles, so discussion of how WP:NLIST applies would be relevant.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 05:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Does the presence or absence of annotation have any bearing on whether the article should be kept or not?  General guidance for lists, which includes indexes, is that appropriate annotation is desirable.  In this case it is automatic through the {{ Annotated link }} templates · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 11:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] With regard to the notability of an index list of notable divers, the exact criteria for inclusion in our index is obviously subject to consensus in the usual way.  (Make your proposals on the talk page, and we can take it from there).  There are organisations such as International Scuba Diving Hall of Fame and Women Divers Hall of Fame dedicated to honouring notable divers within their scopes, which do not necessarily coincide with our criteria, which currently also include divers notable for other things, like involvement in notable accidents, setting world records, performing notable rescues, discovering or salvaging notable shipwrecks, starting notable diving related organisations etc, inventing notable equipment or procedures, and generally being sufficiently notable to have an article on Wikipedia, as well as being notable in connection with underwater diving.  We can make our scope narrower and more precise if someone can produce an appropriate set of criteria which are both rational and within policy and guidance.  It is likely that this will become necessary over time, but it does not seem to be urgent at present.  The Transhumanist , you might wish to expand on this.  · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 14:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note also, that an index is constrained far beyond a regular list , which could contain a far wider variety of entries, which are not inherently required to meet WP notability constraints in the way that an index, which links to existing articles that have already been shown to be notable, does.  · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 14:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , seems a perfectly reasonable navigational list; not every reader understands or is aware of categories, and the level of annotation is also very reasonable.  No problem with moving to "List" instead of "Index" if preferred.  Elemimele ( talk ) 13:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , agree with comment just above.  Bduke ( talk ) 05:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Challenge to the premise The nominator, Joseph2302 , claims Don't need a comprehensive list of all notable underwater divers, this is what categories for Category:Underwater divers and its subcategories are for.  I suggest that this is simply wrong , and that it is not possible to use the Category:Underwater divers and its subcategories to produce a "comprehensive list of all notable underwater divers" or even a non-comprehensive list of "notable underwater divers" which excludes underwater divers which are not notable as underwater divers , (ie. an equivalent to the index they proposed for deletion) without considerable post-processing by a knowledgeable editor.  I challenge them to demonstrate their claim.  If this cannot be done, the reason given for the nomination is invalid.  Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk) : 06:16, 28 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep