Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things described as pied

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 delete. Conversion to a DAB page would not be appropriate, per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial title matches, and the argument of two users that they used this to discover what "pied" meant is met by a soft redirect from Pied to Wiktionary. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of things described as pied

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a repository of loosely associated topics. This list constitutes both and should therefore be deleted. Neelix (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I beg to differ on the above points. Firstly, the list is certainly not indiscriminate; it is limited to names and phrases that use the term 'pied' descriptively, acting both as a navigation aid and a list in which to check whether a particular name using the term has been pre-empted. Secondly, neither are most of the items in the list loosely associated; they refer to the common names of animals, principally birds. I suppose that the non-animal items in the list could be removed; they are largely incidental - included to increase the usefulness of the list (even if only marginally) for anyone looking for things described as 'pied' generally - but why lose information for some sort of conceptual tidiness? Maias (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to dab. That's what the page currently looks like anyway. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambig page- I agree with Blanchardb. Reyk _YO! 05:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to make it a dab page again; it was only made a list because an editor objected to it being a dab in the first place (see page history, 27 September 2008). Maias (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm in agreement here. Weak convert to disambiguation page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC), modified to weak 06:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Change !vote to delete. They're right, this isn't a dab at all, and this, as a list, really should not live here. =/ --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 09:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambig - As detailed above, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 10:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - If this was a disambiguation page, all the entries would be invalid because they are all partial title matches. This page is neither acceptable as a list nor as a disambiguation page. Neelix (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was trying to work out what "Pied" in "Pied Piper" meant, and ended up at this page, where I was interested to find that the same word "pied" is used to describe various birds. This should not be a disambig page, for the reasons Neelix gives. Perhaps it could be tidied and trimmed to make a short article on the concept of "pied". Perhaps it should be moved back to Pied. ComputScientist (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with compuscientist. I too was wondering what "pied" meant. don't care about the list. Zeke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.155.166 (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was first going to ask Zeke, above, why he didn't just look up Pied, and then I found out why - it's a redirect to the aforementioned article. Looking at the history of the article, the article has had some edit history issues - prior to the move from Pied to the above article, there was an issue as to somebody creating a redirect to Piebald as a likely search. Other people were involved, and then User:Maias had restored from the previous edit and moved it. I refuse to call WP:POINT, as I think that Maias was acting in the interest of preserving the article - basically, I'm assuming good faith on his part. But I'm still not sure this really is a good source of a redirect or disambiguation page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The only argument which has been presented thus far for keeping this page, either as a disambiguation page or as a list, is that it is useful for users attempting to figure out what the word "pied" means. This is not a valid argument for keeping the page. The claim that a page is useful has been specifically identified as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The title "List of things described as pied" should be deleted because it is, by necessity, a list of partial title matches, which are prohibited on disambiguation pages. Pied, however, is free to be a disambiguation page, but the only entries I can think of that would be valid disambiguation page entries are Pieing and Piebald (and a link to Wiktionary). In any case, that page is not part of this discussion. This page should not be moved back to Pied because a "list of things described as" is explicitly not what a disambiguation page is supposed to be. Neelix (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per:

Pied can be made a soft redirect to Wiktionary for the readers wondering what "pied" means, or an article (not a list) if encyclopedic coverage can be added. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the soft redirect from Pied. An alternative would be to redirect it to Piebald. The list should still be deleted, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ye gods, I forgot about the Eep2 stuff! We gimped those for the same reason. For the author of the article, I hate to say it, but they're right on this one, I gotta go this route. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 09:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This absolutely does not meet the purpose of a disambiguation page, because virtually none of these entries are referred to as "pied." For example, it is not reasonable that someone would refer to the Northern Pied-babbler as "pied," or that they would search for that bird under the title "pied," or expect the article about that bird to be located at the title "pied." These topics are not ambiguous and, as pointed out above, our disambiguation guidelines (WP:D#Partial title matches) explicitly say that this sort of thing should not be included on a disambiguation page. I was the one who redirected the list (back when it was a disambig page) to Piebald, because it appeared to be the only topic listed that was actually (occasionally) referred to as just "Pied" (and I wouldn't object to such a redirect being reinstated). As for the argument that this article should be kept because Wikipedia should have a page or article defining every single word in the English language, whether or not there's anything else to say about it: that is what a dictionary is for. Propaniac (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are reasons we have a prominent search box, and avoiding pages like this would be one of them. This is not a disambiguation page, this is a list. By analogy, are we to create a list of things described as "red"? Josh Parris 21:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate. ^Bongo_matic 03:45, 27 November 2009 (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.