Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of breakfast-related articles

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Index of breakfast-related articles

[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)

I don't see a use of this index. It seems to fails WP:NOTDIR as its only purpose is to be a directory of breakfast articles. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commment 1: It is an index of loosely related breakfast pages. So it fails WP:NOTDIR, which states "however, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed" particularly Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2: It seems to just list breakfast related articles. There are a couple of articles not listed and I'm sure there's tons of breakfast-related articles on Wikipedia. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of breakfast related item deletions:

Courtesy ping to @FeydHuxtable, Andrew Davidson, Northamerica1000, Rhododendrites, Ritchie333, Hijiri88, Spshu, SilkTork, Newslinger, AmericanAir88, Roxy the dog, Ajf773, JohnBlackburne, Dorsetonian, Shadowowl, The Gnome, Lyndaship, Bearian, Reywas92, Alpha3031, Power~enwiki, El cid, el campeador, XOR'easter, and DexterPointy: --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As WP:NOTDIR says, "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." This is a legitimate example of one such. XOR'easter (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Functioning as a directory of Wikipedia content is exactly the use of any index, which NOTDIR explicitly supports ("...Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content."). So I don't see a way in which this "seems" to fail it. When clear language says exactly the opposite of what a nominator claims, I always have to wonder...whence their error? Not to mention when a nomination seems to contradict numerous guidelines and well-established practices (see, e.g., WP:LISTPURP, WP:CLN, WP:INDEXES), but does not even comment on that contradiction. postdlf (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is an index of loosely related breakfast pages. So it fails "However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed" particularly Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Parroted phrases don't transform ipse dixits into arguments. postdlf (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It is a discriminate index that does not qualify for deletion per WP:NOTDIR. I agree with XOR'easter's assessment above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems to just list breakfast related articles. There are a couple of articles not listed and I'm sure there's tons of breakfast-related articles on Wikipedia. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above comments. a perfectly good navigational index. --Michig (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. BTW, lack of completeness is not a reason for deletion, otherwise we'd have many, many, many more lists to consider. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say is that the article seem want to be a list of all breakfast articles on Wikipedia. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above. This is a good tool for navigation. Also, a lack of completeness is not a reason to delete and we can use this to clean up the article. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The point of WP:NOTDIR is that we shouldn't emulate the style of commercial directories, yellow pages, or sales catalogues. But that's not a general prohibition of indexes and lists. Per WP:CLN, these are valid and useful here. Andrew D. (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Haven't made up my mind about the breakfast foods page, but this seems like a fine navigational aid. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple problems

The scoping (i.e. "breakfast-related articles" in lead) is so loose that anything goes. It not only allows for anything eatable or drinkable (beer soup is already there), but really nearly everything (Cutlery, Microwave ovens, Slippers, ... ).
Regarding "Wikipedia working as its own directory": Given the flat mesh structure WP is (it doesn't even qualify as a undirected graph), then the order of the present day is actually to simply search for whatever is being wanted.
The idea that Wikipedia some day will even remotely succeed in providing some reasonable taxonomy & ontology of itself, is ... well, in an alternative universe.
Editors may certainly benefit from keeping their own "private" lists or directories (designed & scoped in anyway they see fit), but as far a readers (i.e. the real audience of WP) goes, then the interlinking of articles in the articles (incl. "see also"-sections) is what really may matter.
Saying: Things with potential negative value to readers, should not be kept article space for the sake of editors, when editors do have other options.

-- DexterPointy (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an Index of breakfast related articles. It's self-defining, and its what we do on Wikipedia to help readers navigate and discover more. See Wikipedia:Indexes for more information. This campaign against breakfast related lists lacks credibility and is starting to feel pointy and disruptive. SilkTork (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a vendetta against breakfast lists. I only nominated them because they all had such a wide scope. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see a WP:NOTDIR violation, because "directory" in this policy refers to directory services. Wikipedia has a listing of directories at Wikipedia:Directories and indexes, which links to Portal:Contents. In Portal:Contents/Culture and the arts, you can see links to similarly implemented pages such as Outline of chocolate and Outline of wine. — Newslinger talk 17:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Added Index of breakfast-related articles to Outline of meals. — Newslinger talk 17:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A perfectly fine list-based article supported by WP:LISTN and WP supports list based articles as navagational aids per WP:CLN. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no good reason to delete this list. Lepricavark (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2018 (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.