Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chile-related topics


 * 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   no consensus. As was pointed out by various parties in the discussion, the larger issues go beyond these articles. Perhaps a wider discussion ultimately will help settle those. In this particular Afd there is no clear consensus. I don't think it's too much, though, to suggest that editors might want to try to reign the list in. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Chile-related topics

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. This is an indiscriminate list, Wikipedia is not a directory. Saying that it is "Chile-related" is not discriminate. JBsupreme (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I know that the fact that someone put a lot of work into something is not a valid reason to keep. However someone did and this is probably not a bad way to list articles.  A person wanting to learn more about Chile would find this list useful. Northwestgnome (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is what  is for. Ivanvector (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep perfectly valid list/index, although they should be merged to one. No different from Wyoming's list, or any others from, or the 165 country lists in . - Spaceman  Spiff  01:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There's no way I could vote "keep" on this, and the only reason I don't vote "delete" is because someone worked hard on this. Normally, I would say that a list can co-exist with a category, but this one is too big to be useful, and it's actually worse than a category, which is no small feat.  Believe it or not, it runs for more than 100 pages (try clicking on print, without actually printing, and you'll see the estimate), making it something like ten times as long as the Wyoming list referred to above.  There's no limit to what's thrown in here (Easter Island, Buildings and structures in Chile, Observatories in Chile, Houses in Chile, Chilote mythology, Mapuche mythology, etc. etc.).  Yes, someone worked very hard on this, but the nominator is right that this is an indiscriminate list (in other words, it's just a list of articles with no additional information).  The list tells me that there's an animal in Chile called a culpeo, with nothing to tell me what a culpeo is.  If all this serves is to tell me where to click on an article, if all this does is list a subset of articles in alphabetical order, it's been done. Mandsford (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's the entire purpose of this Index wikiproject. At the risk of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Index of Chile-related articles is no different from the 165 other country indexes or the 50 US state indexes. The list should be smerged to the index, but if we are questioning the concept of these Indexes, then it shouldn't be restricted to Chile alone. - Spaceman  Spiff  17:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't even notice that JBSupreme had nominated two articles instead of one. I think that it's in serious need of a different format.  It wouldn't run 100+ pages and it would be less unreadable if it didn't insist on a
 * separate
 * line
 * for
 * everything.

Mandsford (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No arguments from me on that piece. – Spaceman  Spiff  20:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as the categorisation of "Chile-related" topics is not the subject of reliable sources, in the sense that this is neither a recognised subject matter by the world at large in accordance with WP:NAME, nor is the subject matter defined (even in the broadest sense) by any reliable source in accordance with WP:Source list. Without a reliable source to support its inclusion, arguments that it does not fail WP:NOT based on subjective importance are not supported by form of external validation. Without a valid name or verifiable defintion, this list is little more than an open invitation for origininal research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup the outline. Keep the index. The Outline seems to be a mixture of an Outline and an Index. Both are valid navigational page types, but mixing them together might not be ideal. There are RfCs being drafted to discuss these and related topics. There are WikiProjects associated with both, each with hundreds of items (WP:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge and the draft stage WP:WikiProject Index). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both. It appears that the editor(s) built these enormous, unnavigable directories by harvesting titles from Wikipedia's own category tree. It is time to put an end to this nonsense. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - It looks like the kind of quick  reference pages I  made for a Wikiproject I  founded, to  help  potential project  participants to locate stuff they  would like to work on.  I'm  not  sure that  List of Chile-related topics is a candidate for main article space.--Kudpung (talk) 11:30, 30 January 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.