Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of online real estate databases

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KAP03 (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of online real estate databases

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

This article should be deleted because it is WP:LISTCRUFT definitions #7, #9, and # 12. It also fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7 which states "Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." This is because it the article is a list about a product type without context. KAP03 (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the context is that these are online real estate databases. The list doesn't have additional fields that would further contextualize but I don't see that as a reason to delete. This master list would seem to complement the eponymous category Category:Online real estate databases, per WP:CLN. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add more details or make it a category. Carrot official (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Category:Online real estate databases has exactly the same content as List of online real estate databases so what is the point of having the list?— Preceding unsigned comment added by KAP03 (talk • contribs)

Have you actually read WP:CLN, which I linked to directly above your comment? Because it doesn't seem like you have. And it answers your question. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@KAP03: Since you have only been editing here for a little over month, you may not be aware that WP:LISTCRUFT is not a guideline but merely an essay, containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Isn't there another area of wikipedia that you can work in to develop editing skills? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Keep. Categories and lists complement eac other -- categories populate automatically; lists can five a few word of context. They have different purposes. For me, if I want to check all the articles in a category I use the category; if I want some idea ofwhat the important articles in a categoru are likely to be, and its a field where I might not recognize all the names, I use a list, DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid list article, aiding in navigation, all links are blue. You should never try to erase a list article just because you prefer a category better. Also Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, we're not running out of space. Dream Focus 15:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Online real estate databases. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the nominator may misunderstand what "context" means in WP:NOTDIRECTORY: it doesn't mean the list has to contain a paragraph's worth of information about each individual entry; it means the topic has to have some context for why an encyclopedia should care about it. (For example, if I created a list of employees at my local grocery store, that would fail NOTDIRECTORY — but a list of notable things is not an automatic NOTDIRECTORY fail just because it's a list.) And as other commenters have noted, lists are not automatically deemed redundant with categories either — because they organize the content in different ways, they serve different purposes. The list can, for example, be improved with a bit more of the nominator's type of context, such as being converted into a table with geographic information and references, whereas a category cannot. There certainly are some cases where a list isn't actually warranted, but I'm not seeing a compelling argument being made why this would be one of them. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2016 (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.