Wikipedia:List guidelines reborn

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Below is a proposed guideline for inclusion of lists in Wikipedia. We feel that WP:LIST is unsatisfactory, and overly vague, and thus many well-meaning editors are involved in furious disputes in AfD.

So many of these non-notable lists are floating around AfD, and it is this essay's intention to formulate a guideline that we can use to more clearly and fairly define which lists are appropriate for inclusion on our encyclopedia. The proposal is relatively simple and aims to definitively answer questions regarding lists: The list must pass all of the following criteria

Please note that the citations offer explanations of the guidelines

The criteria edit

The subject of the list must be worthy of an article,.^[1] or obviously and self-evidently related to another subject that deserves an article.^[2] This includes any subject that has or could be merged into a larger article, and, if it were long enough, could have its own article.^[3]
'The list must be sufficiently maintainable and not unmanagably vast'^[4]
The list is not able to be merged with another, either because of the distinction of its subject^[5] or the illogicality of the merger.^[6]
The list must have a reasonable plausability of usefulness.^[7]
The list must not be containable in a category, either because of the number of red links that could be articles, the organization of entries not being alphabetical, or because of explanation needed beside each entry.
Lists may not center around a subject that contains necessarily controversial value judgments.^[8]

Clear and delineated guidelines are necessary for lists, especially considering how bad the situation is becoming in AfD. We realize that lists follow the same guidelines as other articles, but it can be difficult to apply those guidelines in such a fundamentally different context.

Problems with the proposed guideline edit

Legitimate lists that might not pass the guideline edit

Illegitimate lists that might pass the guideline edit

Explanation of the criteria edit

^ One could write an article List of vegetables, because vegetables deserve an article. How about "list of legislative buildings by construction material" (brick, stone)? This cannot be a list because it is unreasonable to have an article called "Construction materials used in legislative buildings".
^ The Rolling Stones and "Songs by the Rolling Stones" are obviously and self-evidently related. So, although it may be inappropriate to have an article called "Songs by the Rolling Stones, it is perfectly acceptable to have an article called "List of Songs by the Rolling Stones". The same goes with "Ford" and "List of car models produced by Ford"
^ Certain articles are so small that they can be merged into a larger article. Field hockey goalies are listed in the Goalkeeper article, and though they do not have their own article, they form an integral part of the Goalkeeper article, and if expanded it could form its own article. An example of a section that is not integral, and could not form its own article upon expansion would be a section concerning a school newspaper within an article about a high school. So, a "List of field hockey goalies" would be viable, but a "List of high school newspapers" would not be.
^ Something like "List of human beings" or "List of companies" would be impossible to maintain.
^ As to the "distinction of its subject", it would be improper to merge "African vocalists" with "African instrumentalists", because the two are distinct entities.
^ This is more for blatant examples, such as merging "Brands of hot dogs" with "Breeds of dogs"
^ A list may not contain mere trivia that can not be used in any reasonable circumstance. This is a backup to criterion 1, and I would not be suprised or upset if it were removed, as it is too contentious and unclear.
^ One may not create a list called "List of really good authors" or "List of dictators", as these are value judgments that would draw obvious controversy. This does not, however, rule out lists of minorly subjective subjects that would only draw controversy over obvious and self-evidently improper entries. Controversial entries are demanded to have proper citation.

[1] One could write an article List of vegetables, because vegetables deserve an article. How about "list of legislative buildings by construction material" (brick, stone)? This cannot be a list because it is unreasonable to have an article called "Construction materials used in legislative buildings".

[2] The Rolling Stones and "Songs by the Rolling Stones" are obviously and self-evidently related. So, although it may be inappropriate to have an article called "Songs by the Rolling Stones, it is perfectly acceptable to have an article called "List of Songs by the Rolling Stones". The same goes with "Ford" and "List of car models produced by Ford"

[3] Certain articles are so small that they can be merged into a larger article. Field hockey goalies are listed in the Goalkeeper article, and though they do not have their own article, they form an integral part of the Goalkeeper article, and if expanded it could form its own article. An example of a section that is not integral, and could not form its own article upon expansion would be a section concerning a school newspaper within an article about a high school. So, a "List of field hockey goalies" would be viable, but a "List of high school newspapers" would not be.

[4] Something like "List of human beings" or "List of companies" would be impossible to maintain.

[5] As to the "distinction of its subject", it would be improper to merge "African vocalists" with "African instrumentalists", because the two are distinct entities.

[6] This is more for blatant examples, such as merging "Brands of hot dogs" with "Breeds of dogs"

[7] A list may not contain mere trivia that can not be used in any reasonable circumstance. This is a backup to criterion 1, and I would not be suprised or upset if it were removed, as it is too contentious and unclear.

[8] One may not create a list called "List of really good authors" or "List of dictators", as these are value judgments that would draw obvious controversy. This does not, however, rule out lists of minorly subjective subjects that would only draw controversy over obvious and self-evidently improper entries. Controversial entries are demanded to have proper citation.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]