Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Buddhist temples in Thailand


 * 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   keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Buddhist temples in Thailand

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This stand-alone list is severely lacking and impossible to complete. It fails to serve the purposes outlined under WP:LIST, has no notability criteria for inclusion and is not annotated, thereby providing no useful information whatsoever (perhaps except for sorting by province, which is entirely replaceable by subcategorising.) Paul_012 (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To put this in perspective, there are a total of 33,902 registered functioning Buddhist temples in Thailand as of 2004 according to the ministry of culture. Mentioning a handful, half of which are red links, with no regard to importance or notability, is unlikely to provide encyclopaedic information in my opinion. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, looks fine to me. Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.   —Paul_012 (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Provides information categories cannot-- organization by geography, images, and useful red-links for future articles. Clearly a notable subject. Just needs some sourcing and maybe some text/information. If the list gets too long, break it up into sections. Dekkappai (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have incorporated the geographical organisation provided by this list into the structure of Category:Buddhist temples in Thailand. Images can be included in category pages. Also, the list guidelines state that "as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space, if the list is not otherwise encyclopedic." --Paul_012 (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- Dekkappai (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Needs a lot of work, obviously, but this is insufficient reason to delete a subject that is clearly notable and encyclopedic. Eventually could be broken into subarticles by area/city, etc. once comprehensiveness grows. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If the page is to be kept, advise on how to turn the page into an encyclopaedic article would be appreciated. Granted, there is an official list (in Thai), but even if someone were to undertake the daunting task of translating and incorporating the thirty-thousand-plus temples into the article, it would leave us with a list one hundred times the length of List of churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York. I wonder what the reader would gain from such a list, which borders on being a directory, which Wikipedia is not. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment No one is arguing that lists are "encyclopaedic". Lists are "almanacical". Wikipedia is a reference work containing elements of an encyclopedia, almanac, and gazetteer. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Perfect example of regiocentricity. Church list is ok, temple list is bad. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. I never said that such lists of churches are of great encyclopaedic value (although that one is far more complete and informative than this list), nor did I say this list should be deleted because it is a list of temples. It is, however, a hugely incomplete list of multiple subjects, some of which are notable, some of which aren't, with very poor prospect of ever being expanded and improved enough to be of use. I've been watching the page for two years, and although there have been additions now and then, all that's been achieved is an arbitrary list which provides no further information about its topics. As I said above, though, suggestions to improvement are welcome, though I wonder who would be interested enough in the article to apply them. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There are various comparable lists of churches - List of churches in Greater Manchester is one of the better ones. A directory gives addresses and phone numbers - not sure there is any danger of that. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to side with Paul on this one -- the list is incomplete, and there are too many red links in what is presented. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Incomplete is not a reason for deletion. If it was, we would have to delete every stub in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not understand the nominator's rationale. Thailand is famous for the religion and temples. Even though the list has long way to go, but I don't see any good reason for the list to be deleted. List is a compact version of what related articles are here and have to be created. If the red links are problems, then create article or de-linked. --Appletrees (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I find the "The list is incomplete, delete it" argument quite fascinating. Is there a movement afoot to delete all non-complete articles now? Dekkappai (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: obviously the list would benefit from (a lot of) upgrading work but the subject matter is unobjectionable, and lists are complementary to cats, not opposed to them. HeartofaDog (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep notable subject and appropriate list . DGG (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep notable list. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2008 (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.