Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of archaeological sites sorted by country


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 05:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

List of archaeological sites sorted by country
Delete. List is completely redundant with Category:Archaeological sites by country. All entries on the list are in that category under their respective country or a subcategory (Like Category:Roman sites in Italy. The list is un-dynamic, unweildy, large, incomplete and impossible to keep updated. No annotations or other supplemental information are included in the list, very few red links are listed. Many items on the list are not archaeological sites at all, but instead are archaeological cultures, cites with no record of archaeology, entire regions of a country or significant archaeological artifacts. The category is more useful and requires much less maintenace to keep current. Currently both the category and the list are listed in Category:Archaeological sites making navigation to the category as easy as navigation to the list, and the list does not have a record of frequent edits. Pschemp | Talk 11:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as lists and categories serve different functions. Also I'm interested in ancient China and there are three or so red links on this list I can work on. (That said I think Bampo is likely red because it's meant to be Banpo)--T. Anthony 11:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the page should be kept since it does offer a page where you can at least find a few archaeological sites in a country - at the moment I am carrying out research relating to france and have found it v useful. [3rd Feb 2006] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.135.1.53 (talk • contribs)


 * You can find all those and more in the better list at Category:Archaeological sites in France too. Pschemp | Talk 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm not a listmonger, but this one seems worthy enough and useful. PJM 12:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete redundant list duplicates category. MLA 12:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The only reason to contemplate keeping this list would be for the red links. But those could be readily merged into the individual national category pages under Category:Archaeological sites by country. So my preference would be to delete after preserving the red links. Thanks. :) &mdash; RJH 16:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. All the red links have been listed at Requested articles/Social Sciences and Philosophy in the archaeology section. Now there is no need to keep it for future articles.  Some of them I stubbed before I realized they should go to the requests page, but they are all there. Pschemp | Talk 19:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 06:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Duplicate is always bad. The fact that it shows red links is IMHO not sufficient reason to keep it. Pavel Vozenilek 22:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to category, and too big, and probably POV, and Listcruft. Stifle 01:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, much more convenient that a whole bunch of categories with 2 items apiece. Kappa 02:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is hard to beleive the list is more convenient when it doesn't even include half of the countries in the category. I don't think its correct to sacrifice accuracy of information for ease in an enclyclopedia. Would you like to volunteer to keep this list up to date then? Because in its current, error filled state, its neither useful or convienient. Pschemp | Talk 05:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I much prefer lists anyhow, even though I admit categories have their place alongside them. Jcuk 00:02, 7 February 2006 (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.