Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of article sections about future

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. Brandon (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of article sections about future

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

Arbitrary list of generally unrelated articles. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There does not seem to be a guiding principle behind this list, which allows it to contain any article that even remotely deals with the wide subject matter of "the future" and contains no criteria for discerning what qualifies an article to be added to the list. Such arbitrary lists do not helpfully organize information in a way that assists editors or readers. Mrathel (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I get the concept-- click on a link, and it takes you not only to the article, but the section of the page that says "future" or "trends". But I don't get what use it would serve. Mandsford (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no problem with this--as other lists of articles are about whole articles, this is about relevant sections. A purely navigational device. It would serve the use of finding related material on a subject. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Mandsford in that I can see the concept for a navigational list here, but I don't understand its value. Unlike Mandsford, I'm reserving my opinion for the moment in case someone explains. (Not quite convinced by DGG's explanation; wouldn't a complete list of every article that has a "future" section be unmanageably huge?)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dangerous precedent. first of all, its self referential, which wp should avoid. are there other navigational guides like this? ready for hundreds of thousands of articles like this? list of article sections about "history", "personal life", "background", "criticism" "popular culture", etc. and it will never be complete, as many articles will have mention of the subjects future without a section, but that could become a section. lists of articles makes sense, but lists of subjects brought up in articles is endless. any article could be included by simply breaking out a subsection called "Future". and of course, these articles have nothing in common except that they refer to subjects that exist in the time space continuum, which by my last count, included everything. Delete as having either unclear criteria for inclusion or exclusion, if you allow for all articles that actually do mention a subjects future, or delete as hopelessly self referential, if its strictly speaking only articles with the word Future in a section heading.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a search engine. A well constructed search will do in two seconds what this "list" does in hours of maintenance and upkeep. Hopelessly incomplete, and generally useless. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inclined to agree with Bradjamesbrown. GlassCobra 01:51, 26 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.