Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geography of Serbia and Montenegro


 * 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  Redirect to Serbia and Montenegro. Mandsford 20:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Geography of Serbia and Montenegro

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Redundant, no justification for an article. At the very least it should be a redirect. Buttons (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There was Serbia and Montenegro; there is a section "Geography" in its article. Of course, the discussed page is kinda weird, but non-nosense, and the subject is plausible and expandable. May be I will take a look tomorrow. While indeed, it may seem redundant, still, there are some basic facts better to find out in one place, rather than deducing from two separate pages. I am not talking only about total area and population numbers. There are other things of various importance in ecomomy and politics, such as access to sea, natural resources, etc. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect. Changed my vote because google shows that nobody wrote about "Geography of S&M" except wikipedia mirrors and these "Crooks, LLC", er,... sorry, Books, LLC, who fleece wikipedia, or, rather those stupid ones who can find "Books, LLC" in internet, but cannot find wikipedia there. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The content is essentially the same as that in the "Geography" section of Serbia and Montenegro, so it hinges on whether that content can be expanded, or whether the expansion should be in Geography of Montenegro or Geography of Serbia. I see no reason why there might not be expansion in this articles that is more relevant to the former country than the two new countries. Let us be careful to have a NPOV on this one and not a political outcome. So a weak keep. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  03:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, although I wouldn't oppose a redirect to Serbia and Montenegro. We don't have an article for the Geography of the USSR, we shouldn't have it for other defunct states, especially if it's as short as this article is. Any relevant information that a reader would want to find, can be found in the Geography of Montenegro and Geography of Serbia articles.--hkr Laozi speak  04:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But we do have Geography of the Soviet Union.... and Geography of the USSR now as well. But, ah, my bad, we still don't have Geography of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics :-). Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (or redirect to Serbia and Montenegro at most). Redundant and unnecessary. I don't quite get the Lokys's point that "some basic facts are better to find out in one place" is a justification for existence of this article. That assertion is true, but that place is Serbia and Montenegro. No such user (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is basically that a well-defined and reasonably notable subject deserves a separate article, rather than requiring readers to compite the corresponding knowledge themselves: Wikipedia is not paper. We have standard format for countries and it is reasonable expect that a reader may type "geography of S&M" to go to this page; only to learn that S&M does not have geography in wikipedia. Since this knowledge must be somewhere in wikipedia, it is a small step to allow placing it into a separate page, if it is more than two sentences: no harm. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The harm is in having to fix, expand and otherwise maintain duplicate information, which invariably leads to discrepancy in two versions. This is a former country, and for most former countries we do not maintain separate geography articles, by the virtue that most of basic geographic information does not change. As Sjakkale pointed out before, the content is there already. In my view (coming from a lot of experience in software programming business), duplicate code is for the most part actively harmful. 14:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Serbia and Montenegro since the content is there already. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Serbia and Montenegro. No need for a specific article on geography of a defunct country. Anything new could go into Serbia and/or Montenegro. Bazonka (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.