The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Keep. Lauryn^☆ 23:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of rocks (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Gordonrox24 | ^Talk has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:

A pretty much useless page. [[Category:Rocks]] servers pretty much the same purpose as this article. Make sure all blue links are in that category, and then delete.

Please discuss this deletion below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options that are not just "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

• This list should be changed into a category. —§ stay (sic)! 00:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Kansan (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lists and Categories are not mutually exclusive. -DJSasso (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we already have a Rocks Category. Quantum4 ^{Send me a message} 16:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: as someone wo studied geology during my first degree, I think this is a very useful list. It actually needs expanding, and the redlinks encourage others to make articles we sorely need here. fr33kman 08:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakly delete After some thought, I decided it might be pretty useful, but doesn't it have just the same function as a category? Classical Esther 01:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No categories and lists have different functions, a category is just to sort out articles we have, while lists are not required to be composed completely of articles (some things on a list will never have an article), also they will have all the items on one page where a category may be split over many pages. -DJSasso (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  True. Also a category will also only display articles that have been created. If we had more blue links I could see keeping it, but it really is just a list of mostly redlinks. Redlinks don't help anybody.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Red links help people know what needs to be created. Red links are very helpful. -DJSasso (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As others have said, lists and categories are not mutually exclusive. The fact that this shows redlinks is a reason to keep it - it shows articles which have not been created yet, whereas a category would not show this. If all of the list were blue links, I would suggest deleting this page, but as it stands it is actually useful. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per phantomsteve.--Sinbad (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There is nothing wrong with there being both a category and a list. Joe Chill (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Phantom. --MisterWiki (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close seven days after it was filed; that is on approx. Tuesday, 23 February 2010 at 12:05 am, although it may be closed more quickly due to WP:SNOW.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.