Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of basic geography 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   keep. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

List of basic geography topics
This is listcruft that has become a magnet for original research and unsourced content. Barebones links to other articles do not provide any context to the reader in the form of commentary, criticism or analysis that are the hallmark of encyclopedic content, and the rationale for deletion is threefold: There would be no loss by deleting this article from the standpoint of Wikipedia, as the categorisation of certain topics as being geography related already catered for by the Category:Geography and its related taxonomy of sub-categories.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) This list of loosely associated topics fails WP:NOT. Whether the topics listed can labeled as basic geography topics is a matter of subjective opinion, not verifiable fact;
 * 2) "Basic geography topics" or "Basic topics in geography" is not a recognised subject matter by the world at large in accordance with WP:NAME. The title could easily be changed or duplicated by "List of basic topics in geography", "List of topics related to geography" or "List of geography topics", which may indicate that this list is a content fork from the article Geography and its sub-artles, which addresses the over arching geograhy related topics directly and in detail;
 * 3) The definition of a "basic geography topics" is neither defined nor the subject of any reliable secondary source that would its inclusion as a seperate standalone list article in accordance with WP:Source list;


 * Support I have to say that the nominator laid out the points for the deletion of this very clearly. Per the nominators reasoning.-- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Editors should be aware that this AFD is specifically tied to discussion at the Village Pump and may wish to read further rational behind it there. --M ASEM (t) 12:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, possibly rename:
 * 1. As a fairly specific list of key geographical concepts, it's not exactly a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization or a repository of loosely associated topics. How exactly does it violate WP:NOTDIR? From WP:STAND: glossaries (annotated topical lists) are an established aspect of Wikipedia, and some lists can yield an encyclopedic page, such as List of English words containing Q not followed by U.


 * 2. I'm sorry but I fail to see any validity in the "content fork" argument. According to your logic, we would have to remove the vast majority of Wikipedia's listings, if not all of them. Should List of European countries be deleted as a fork of Europe? I think not. From WP:CFORK: Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork.


 * 3. I see nothing in this list that distinguishes it from Lists of film topics, Lists of mathematics topics, Outline of physics, and hundreds of similarly titled pages. If the root problem of the page lies in its name, the article can easily be given a more precise and unambiguous title.


 * 4. As for Category:Geography, WP:CLN clearly states that [c]ategories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. — Rankiri (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to Outline of geography per Rankiri - espec. #3. Ben   Mac  Dui  18:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - valid list. Should be moved to a better title to be subsequently agreed. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)}
 * Keep. This is a part of the Outline WikiProject, and is part of a naming dispute (and a move-war, so don't rename it yet, though it should be consistent in the end). The (outline) name is quite standard too, see outline of geography -wikipedia (google) - the 1st result is from the University of Wisconsin, and the 4th result from the U.S. Department of State, with thousands of results overall. The nom knows there is (and has participated in) an RfC being drafted at User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft, to discuss this and related matters. It would have been helpful to mention this, or the VillagePump discussion. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is supposed to have several alternate navigation streams, including, searchbox, outlines, categories, and indexes/TOC. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOT#DIR does not apply to listings of existing contents of Wikipedia.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is news to me. Is there any policy or guideline that you could refer me to? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some things are too obvious to need the statement. Start with WP:NOT.  The intention of application is pretty clear.  Wikipedia, like any large resource, *needs* navigation aides.  Do you really think that Portal:Contents should be deleted because it is essentially a directory listing of the contents of the encyclopedia?  Now if the page did in fact contain large amounts of unsourced content, which it doesn't, you might have a case.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not obvious, in fairness. Regardless of whether a lists of loosely associated topics is linked to other topics or not, it is still an undefined list. A list of artibitarily chosen topics loosely assoicated with geography is what this list is comprised of. What is lacking is a defintion for this list to establish its credentials in accordance with WP:Source list. Otherwise, it is possible to argue that everything under the sun is loosely assoicated with geography. The fact that no one can agree on its name is symptomatic of this. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Obviousness" can be a loaded, complex and subtle thing. Something is often obvious because you've always believed so, with no firm logical basis, but no challenges to date.


 * In many ways your complaint makes sense. I think that the answer is that these lists are not well suited as navigation aides for the content of the encyclopedia, for the reasons you give and even at least a couple of others.  The category system also fails at helping navigation for many needs.  I think that WP:outlines offers the best hope for substantial improvement in providing organised navigation of the encyclopedia.  (If there are other possibilites, please speak up).  I'm certainly disappointed in the lack of progress at WP:Outlines, largely due to defenders of established Lists, but I am hopeful that  will succeed with his intention to see software development to enable implementation of his conception of outlines.  In the meantime, my thoughts strengthened by your arguments, are that lists should be converted to outlines.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I accept you have a valid point about the need for navigational support, but my view is that categories and portals provide this outside of the mainspace domain that is regulated by a framework of policies and guidelines. The problem I have with the inclusion criteria for lists in the absence of notability is that the rationale for their existence is purely subjective. Without reference to any external source, it could be argued, using subjective arguments as a reference point, that both a List of basic geography topics and an Outline of basic geography topics should be exist simultaneously to serve what ever purpose their creators think is useful at a particular point in time. Notability, on the other hand, provides a rationale for existence, as well as verifiable evidence to support a list's title and definition for all time. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I previously adopted the view that Outlines should have its own namespace, because of some point about "Portal:Outline of ..." getting too long for something. I think we could agree that Lists should be converted to "outlines", and moved out of mainspace, and be subjected not to WP:N, but to a requirement that the topics are covered within wikipedia.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Move to Outline of geography. The outline system is a sensible and well organised mapping to the contents of the encyclopedia.  Agree with nominator that "List of..." is not a good name, it is too tempting to add topics directly.  With "Outline", it is more clear that the contents are derived from the existing content of the encyclopedia.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep 1. The nominator does not seem to understand wp:not#dir; a list is, ipse facto, a directory of links to wikipedia articles. 2 What is the problem? That's what redirects for. I don't have an opinion if any of those titles would be better. As we do not have several such lists about geography, this is purely theoretical and irrelevant. 3. "The definition is not defined" Are you serious? This is handwaving with policies. 4. It's OK with redundancy. Categories and lists fulfill different navigation needs. ¨¨ victor   falk  07:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep - but yes a clear nom. Rich Farmbrough, 07:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Snowball keep Useful navigation page consolidating a subject. Just needs more referencing and work and possible renaming to Outline of geography.  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 09:11, 29 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.