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. @Olivier: Feel free to userfy/do with the content what you see fit, if you wish to retain the history. DexDor's comment about blanking might be advisable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Index of China-related articles[edit]

Index of China-related articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

Index of China-related articles (0–L) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Index of China-related articles (M–Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

The last two articles constitute an alphabetical index of China-related articles, the first one is a dab page of sorts linking to the other two. The total number of articles included in these lists is less than 3.5 thousand, which is a small fraction of the total number of eligible articles out there – WikiProject China tracks over 50 thousand. An index so incomplete is misleading to readers; there are no mechanisms for updating it that I'm aware of, and if one gets developed in the future it will still be unclear why such an alphabetical list would be of use to readers. If it's of use to editors, then the list should be moved to the project namespace. Further noting that the two index pages do not constitute a curated selection of important articles: they list some pretty obscure topics, but lack entries for Chinese ceramics or for Xi Jinping (and such a list exists elsewhere anyway). – Uanfala (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of India-related articles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Romania-related articles. An incomplete alphabetical list of thousands of unorganized articles serves no purpose in an online searchable encyclopedia. Reywas92^Talk 18:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the same reasons as Reywas92. Ajf773 (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comments. DexDor ^(talk) 09:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too hard to maintain and will remain incomplete as well. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I created the 2 sub-lists Index of China-related articles (0–L) and Index of China-related articles (M–Z) back in early 2004. They were created out of a single-article list, which I cannot locate now (the current Index of China-related articles was actually created in 2007, after an original -now disappeared- article had been split into 2 parts). At that time, "Categories" did not exist as a feature on Wikipedia, and "Watchlists" most probably didn't either. I was for a while the main user maintaining these lists, which were at that time more or less exhaustive and served essentially as topical watchlists (through the "related changes" feature). With the availability of tools like "Categories" and "Watchlists", the original purpose of these lists has become obsolete, and unsurprisingly they have been largely unmaintained over the years. As a conclusion, I cannot disagree with the nom and I am ready to see these pieces of Wiki-history and the result of quite a bit of work go, with a heavy heart. Olivier (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main concern is to get them out of the mainspace. No objection if they're userfied, or moved to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject China. If we've got a remnant from the now almost unimaginable days before watchlists and categories existed, then surely it's got historical value. – Uanfala (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There may be historical value in noting that such pages existed, but I don't see a value in keeping the pages themselves live (even in another namespace). If it is kept for historical reasons (in another namespace) then could the page be replaced by a notice saying to look in the page's history; that way it's not showing in what-links-here etc. DexDor ^(talk) 18:39, 23 April 2020 (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.