Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of genetic engineering 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 redirect to Index of genetics articles. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Index of genetic engineering articles

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

Just come across this (which is strange in itself as I have been extensively editing this area for years). It is virtually an WP:Orphan,[1] which partially explains why. I am not sure what the purpose of the list is. Best I could find on indexes is that they were an early way of organising topics,^{[citation needed]} but categories are far superior for that purpose.^{[dubious – discuss]} We also have Template:Genetic engineering.

The main problem I have is that there is no context for any of the entries. Most of them do not really relate to genetic engineering. From the first 20 entries in A I would generously suggest three could fit in a list like this Achondroplasia, Adenoviridae and Allele if you had a large inclusion criteria. Then you have strange entries like Albino and Alcoholism. AIRcorn (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't want a situation where indexes are suddenly considered obsolete, I use them all the time, as do many others. They are considered to be a valid type of navigational aid to be used in addition to categories, which are not 'far superior'. They are in many cases, used as a legitimate type of list and serve as an article in their own right. You may want to see Portal:Contents/Indices, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Indexes and Wikipedia:INDICES and Category:Wikipedia indexes for more information, and note the related Wikipedia:Outlines.

That being said, I am not adverse to this specific list being deleted, but please don't talk in terms of indexes in general, most of them are very useful. I will also note that this specific list gets few pageviews [2] possibly indicative of that fact it is not being utilized in any templates or for cross linking. I actually concur with most the nomination reasoning, and unless someone wants the integrate this index properly, it is not serving any useful purpose. Dysklyver 16:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this through the genetic engineering topic, not indices themselves (I misspelt genetic engineering in the search bar). I wasn't even aware of these types of lists before that. I did search for other deletion discussions and looked at the wikiproject before nominating. I have no intention of personally doing a purge of "index of ..." articles (although to be honest the other ones I have seen look no better) as I am just concentrating on this topic area at this stage. As for your tags added to my above comment the citation is from this rfc which I found from the wikiproject talk page. Incidentally the wikiproject (and even Wikipedia:INDICES) gives no real indication as to their purpose. As for the dubious tag, categories are not perfect (and the genetic engineering one is particularly bad - it is on my list), but like indices they list articles relating to a topic and you have the extra organisational step of sub categories so you can more easily narrow down the article of interest. I am curious as to what you use indexes for though? AIRcorn (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I followed your link to the portal and found Index of genetics articles. It is pretty much an exact copy of this article. I would guess this article was copied from that one with no thought as to what is actually genetic engineering. If this is the norm then I may have to rethink my intentions regarding indices, although that would have to be at another venue. This should be a pretty uncontroversial deletion now though. AIRcorn (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In principle, List-class articles are fine per WP:CLN; list articles allow for alternative classification and possible annotation relative to categories and navboxes. So I would argue keep for this article, except for the fact that it seems redundant with Index of genetics articles and some of the terms don't directly relate to genetic engineering, such as altruism. Of the two, Index of genetics articles is the more accurate list. Hence delete, with no prejudice to re-creation if someone wants to create a proper list of genetic engineering-specific articles. --Mark viking (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Index of genetics articles; I agree there's not enough distinction to justify two articles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:49, 12 November 2017 (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.