Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Yellow Pages

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. This list contains content that elevates it beyond a mere directory or a collection of external links and is written in an encyclopedic and academic tone (rather than as an advertisement of some sort). Care should be given to maintaining only appropriate links and notable content in the future; as it stands, this fits well into what is described at WP:LIST. Tijuana Brass (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yellow Pages

Wikipedia is not a directory and this list is little more than a magnet for spam links. ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 18:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Its an interesting article, and its unlikely that their is another site on the web, on which information of this type would be brought together as its so disparate. However, Wikipedia IS not a directory. scope_creep (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, DMOZ has a collection: [1], and this site is pretty comprehensive. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'd also like to be the first to say "Wikipedia is not a directory of directories". While this list certainly is interesting, Yellow Pages is just a brand name and this article invites people to create "list of phone books" or some such. Brad (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep 'not a directory' argument can be used against every List in WP, but WP accepts Lists as part of its structure so this argument has no valid basis. This article contains historical information on the various Yellow Pages which the Web sites do not and which would not readily find in this WP 'encyclopedia plus' 'Yellow Pages' is not 'just a brand'; it is a generic term applying to all manner of commercial advertising books. Does the article need improvement? Of course. And a first tenet of WP is to work to improve articles that need help, not to wipe them out by the easy answer of deletion. Hmains (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you're confusing valid lists with a directory of external links. List of search engines is a very appropriate article, as it organizes a diverse set of articles into a useful ontology. List of Yellow Pages, however, is little more than a (somewhat annotated) directory of external links, which WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NOT#DIR seem pretty clear on. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the links were not present, then I suppose the reason for deleting it would be it is not sourced or cited. What seems clear to me is that once an editor targets an article for deletion, then there will always be references to be found in WP policies or guidelines that can be cited as a rationale for such deletion. Improve, not delete. Hmains (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 22:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In reading over Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory, this looks to me to not apply. This would seem to be a valid list. Perhaps some commenters are confused since this is a list of telephone directories, rather than an actual telephone directory? - jc37 (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Yellow Pages might be confused for the brand name, but there is no reason why we can't have List of telephone directories. Think outside the box 15:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am just starting a business and I was looking for the easiest way to find a drop-shipper in another country. I have not had time to complete my research. I hope you will consider this when deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockerdog (talk • contribs) 18:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you created an account simply to express this view, and nothing else? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a useful and informative list. RMHED (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting and useful list. CG (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To RMHED and CG - please see WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL. Your keep reasons are not sufficient for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is not a directory, and the yellow pages are directories, but this is not the yellow pages verbatim. It's a list of yellow pages. It appears as though the nom may have confounded the issue. I would vote keep, but I haven't examined the list enough (nor would I care to) to form a better opinion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "confound the issue" - this page is mostly a directory of external links to sites that happen to be yellow page directories. This article is, as someone noted above, a directory of directories. While the latter noun doesn't matter, the former does. We don't need pages that are simply fodder for people to come and list a link to their local yellow page provider. (Other sites do that...)--ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant no offense. Just trying to leave a helpful comment, in case there was confusion (not just on your part). --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LIST:

2. Information: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. 3. Navigation: Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind, they would likely use the See also lists. If the user has a specific research goal in mind, and there is only one or two words that are used to describe the research topic, and they know exactly how to spell the word, they would probably use the search engine box. If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).WP:LIST

Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2007 (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.