Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of algal culture collections (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

List of algal culture collections
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was nominated for deletion a few months ago as a pure external-link farm, but ended as no consensus. Several editors asserted that it could be salvaged by reformatting.

A few months later, no substantial edits have been made to the article apart from to add further external links. Wikipedia is still not a web directory or a list of external links. There is no salvageable encyclopedic content here, and I feel the original arguments made to delete it seem only more relevant. Lists are useful as a means of navigating and summarising Wikipedia articles, but it's really not the function of an encyclopedia to provide directories of all the web sites on a topic.~ mazca  t 20:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Keep Notable in the first place. these are probably almost all of them worth an article, but die to the absence of people here in the subject they may be a long time in coming. In the meantime we have at least this. DGG (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, or in the alternative merge to Algaculture after pruning. I don't agree that these are all notable in and of themselves.--Aervanath (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as an article serving as a directory that lacks any independant sources or encyclopedic material. I see this article as containing nothing but spam.  Wikipedia is not a link farm!  Them  From  Space  01:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments at previous AFD. Nothing has changed since then.  Per WP:DELETION we only delete articles if it is felt that we can't make a valid article on the topic, and there is no reason at all such an article cannot be produced on this one. JulesH (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete a classic violation of WP:NOTLINK and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Russavia Dialogue 04:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I believe this is one of thoes few instances where WP:IAR would tell us to use common sense. The links are directly relevant to the article and are equal to Citations proving that each place does house a collection. (Feel free to convert them to actual Citations, they do seem somewhat brutal in their current format.) Just because the Article is sparse on prose (at the moment) is not reason to delete a encyclopedic list that would not be found anywhere else. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  07:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If there was a significant article and those links were present in the "external links" section, I would remove them per WP:ELNO #13 # Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked. As this would be the same as page-blanking, there is absolutely nothing worth saving in this article. The sources aren't third-party sources, so they don't assert notability, nor are they the preferred sourcing for verification.  Them  From  Space  07:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If we are going to start quoting... you missed the bold first sentence "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject"... also WP:EL (nutshell) "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article". all satisfied. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  08:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, its not. The article is about a list of algae collections, not a specific algae collection. If there were an article about each of these collections, than the link would be relevant as the official link, but in a list collection like this there really isn't any one "official" link. The links aren't directly relevant to the article at all as they are about a different scope altogether.  Them  From  Space  08:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not an Article about a list ... It IS a list. Each link is to an official page. That is my application of common sense. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  09:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. - Mgm|(talk) 09:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful, notable, subject of international conferences, a number of the collections are described in peer-reviewed journals (, , , to list a few). Colchicum (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I am in agreement with DGG and JulesH. Also, there is no time limit on how long it takes to spiff up an article. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see where the WP:NOTLINK concerns are coming from, but I think that the basic existence of an article at this title is justified. It would be nice if someone who knows about such collections would format it more like List of herbaria, where the significance of the entries is established by the scope of the collections' holdings. Deor (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a sourced, useful and properly annotated list.Biophys (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2009 (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.