Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BS -- The Bible

It makes me really sad that this was deleted. It was such a cool way to browse. And the classification is listed on lots of organizational pages (like WP:CONTENTS) and will now have to be removed... -- phoebe/(talk) 03:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was only on the BS schedule, but I can understand that if it was felt the consensus was to delete BS that it would also be to delete the of the BA, BB, etc. But there was no discussion of the advisability of deleting the master B schedule. I have asked the closer to explain his rationale on his talk page.

I further did not see a consensus against expanding the LC page to include the complete group of subpages. I encourage further discussion.

I also encourage discussion of a possible deletion review,at least on B. I do not want to start it if it would be hopeless. DGG 03:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not just the B schedule was deleted ... ALL the schedules were deleted, classes A-Z, top level pages. See any old version to follow the red links... if it's not your impression that this was the consensus from the AfD, would a deletion review be in order? -- phoebe/(talk) 05:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What was on these page? I was under the impression that most of them had not been developed? I left the following request for the closing admin, at User talk:IanManka:

"what I urge, is that you restore those main single-letter pages without an actual deletion review, since they had not been discussed, leaving the more specific ones for further consideration and a possible deletion review." DGG 09:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The top-level schedule pages had content; see for example the mirrors of class A and class Q to see what they looked like. I don't know that we need the detailed pages, but surely the top-level pages are useful. Also, perhaps this is mostly a procedural comment... but these pages have been around since 2002, making them some of the oldest content on the site; something like that should take a little more care and thought before wholesale deleting.

IanManka says he's on a wikibreak; if he doesn't respond in a few days perhaps we should send it to DRV. -- phoebe/(talk) 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Before we do that , i would like to be very sure about what we are asking to do. That the pages have been there for the beginning is a reason for stability, but it is also being used--and often correctly--as a reason for looking at articles added when WP was much more primitive and not improved since, and either deleting or bringing up to current standards.. Perhaps the first step is simply to expand the existing main page to the two-letter combinations. I do not think this could reasonably be seen as restoring deleted content. Let's do it this weekend in any case.

Incidentally,with respect to the use for browsing, I once thought this was a very good idea, but it adds an additional system of classification onto an already cumbersome structure. I think the attempt to do it with LC is when the pages date from. The current preference is to stick to categories, and I now think the effort would be best spent on improving categorization. But that's just my opinion. Actually maintaining a LC classification scheme for WP articles is a major job requiring devoted cooperation from several eds. DGG 04:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:IanManka undeleted the pages in question and posted some detailed reasoning and discussion of possible cleanup approaches. I would lean towards a list or pages of the top-level classes and then nothing more beyond that. I don't think categorizing articles with LC classes or similar is a winning strategy in the long run.. LC is just too hard to deal with.

And of course you're right about old articles needing review; that wasn't a very good argument on my part. Anyway, I'm glad the articles are back for now. -- phoebe/(talk) 07:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Another approach is to write the articles to describe that part of the classification, based on Chen's manual , Use of the LC Classification", the prefaces to the printed vols. of the classification, and similar sources. For example, the P article would describe the principles behind the literature classification scheme, which would be helpful. Librarian types know this sort of thing , but nobody else does, and it will help library users find their way. I'll work on it over the weekend. Thanks. DGG 05:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)