Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lists of lists (6th nomination)

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

Keep extremely useful page and the nominator has not provided any proper rationale. Mccapra (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a list of lists of lists, and even if it could be seen as "meta nonsense", that isn't a reason to delete it. This list has also survived 5 deletion discussions: the first, way back in 2012, was withdrawn [1]. The other 4 deletion discussions ended in keeps, the most recent being a snow keep in August 2017 [2]. This list meets the purposes of lists. The list itself has also been mentioned by multiple media organizations. Clovermoss (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the last 5 times this was nominated. – Anne drew 01:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, prohibit future noms. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep - see previous 5 failed noms. [Belinrahs|^talk⁄ _edits] 04:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid rationale for deletion has been presented by the nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is not clear what value this article provides compared to Category:Lists of lists. Both are organized by subject area (although they do not have the same breakdown). The article has about 700 lists of lists while the category has just over 1,100. Most lists are not in any list of lists, so neither this article nor the category would help a general reader. They might be useful to an editor who is starting a new list of lists and wants to see how similar lists of lists have been structured. But why do we need both this article and the category? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDUPE covers this pretty well; basically, categories and lists may cover the same topic but they aren't considered unnecessary duplicates because both have advantages and disadvantages compared to the other. [Belinrahs|^talk⁄ _edits] 22:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary list articles can provide additional information, structure, sources and so on compared to a category. For lists of lists the value is less obvious, particularly when the list of lists simply duplicates the category in the same alphabetical sequence, with no additional information. This is discussed in the essay Wikipedia:Lists of lists#Purpose. For this article, at yet another level of abstraction, I struggle to see any value that is not provided by Category:Lists of lists. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the norm had not been (for years, and even on other projects such as Wikia, as was already mentioned above, as a reply to your previous comment, and before you made this comment) to provide both categories and list articles, there would still be only 48 articles in that category and hundreds in the article. Anarchangel (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]