Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of châteaux in Languedoc-Roussillon


 * 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. Courcelles 00:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

List of châteaux in Languedoc-Roussillon

 * – ( View AfD View log )

List consisting almost entirely of redlinks, to be avoided: WP:LIST. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm nominating the following articles for the same reason. Note that all these articles were copied from French Wikipedia and were borderline WP:CSD anyway, except for the partial translation performed on some of them.



—Largo Plazo (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep - The vast majority of these châteaux are likely to be designated as of historic importance (In the UK we have listed buildings, the Netherlands has Rijksmonuments, in the United States there is the National Register of Historic Places, I'm not sure exactly what the French is, but would expect it to be Monument Historique or similar). There is little difference between these châteaux and the List of castles in England. The individual buildings are notable enough to sustain articles, and therefore the redlinks are valid per WP:REDLINK. Mjroots (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:REDLINK, which you cited, supports deletion of these pages, agreeing with WP:LIST when it says "However, rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use the wikiproject or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep per Mjroots. It appears that a majority of the buildings in these lists are notable and can/should have articles. As a matter of fact, a majority of them have articles in French Wikipedia. --Oakshade (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that my deletion proposal was not based on any claim that these castles in question aren't notable. My objection is based on the lack of existing articles, which WP:REDLINK and WP:LIST both address, and both say that this should not be done in article space. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If all the articles in these lists were redlinks, you'd have a point. However, there are so many existing châteaux articles within each list, these lists are valid.  That cherrypicked WP:REDLINK line you quoted above are for lists with all redlinks.  There are just too many bluelinks to delete these lists.  --Oakshade (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose we may as well discard all of Wikipedia's guidelines altogether, since by your definition, finding precisely the ones that apply to a situation and citing them is "cherrypicking". As for the links that are' blue, by your logic, given a list consisting of 100 redlinks, as soon as two or three of them have articles, the page is suddenly ready for the article namespace. I disagree. The vast majority'' of links on all these pages are red. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I counted over 200 300 existing articles in these lists and that is by far enough existing articles to have lists for. --Oakshade (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep - most, if not all of these should exist, many lists have redlinks, or have had red links which were later filled in, for example List of cattle breeds and you'd be completely out to lunch to delnom one like that. Note that WP:REDLINK would not support removal of the redlinks, therefore suggesting it should be deleted, an even harsher result, is not likely to be sustained. In fact, if you did remove all the redlinks you'd probably have something very similar to a split out of List of castles in France. Whether each province needs a separate list is debatable, but these could be merged into or out from List of castles in France and even if merged in, I would not support removal of the redirects, so deletion is just pointless. I may take on that mission shortly if can decide which way to go. BTW, there is no language in WP:REDLINK that supports deletion of these pages, rather the contrary, it says under "When to create redlinks": "Please do create red links to articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve more treatment than just a dictionary definition, or topics which should obviously have articles." (bold added by me) And later under when there undesirable: "Do not create red links to articles that will never be created". These are all valid articles and should all be created and probably will be. In fact, in this case most of the articles have been written (see, Liste des châteaux de Normandie), they just need translation; so the articles are not at all speculative. Their notability has been discussed above and is not in question. Further, WP:LIST is a very very tiny section of the MOS dealing with people making lists of a project they are working on and deploying the list in article space before substantially any of the articles have been written, often in an obscure area that nobody else may be immediately interested in. Moreover, the tendency has existed before for people to just create lists, never writing the articles at all then moving on to other lists. Also, if we followed everything in the MOS like it was a policy, we'd go nuts and we'd delete a lot of valuable stuff for arbitrary reasons. There are guidelines that we treat like unbendable policy (e.g. WP:DELPRO) and there are style guidelines that we deviate from whenever people can't come up with a better way to handle the article, the MOS is the latter, we don't normally delete things that don't comply with the MOS, we fix them; in this case that means we create the articles. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Doug, I appreciate what you say, but the fact that WP:REDLINKS discusses other aspects of redlinks besides lists in the main article space that were initially constructed with (virtually) nothing but redlinks with the idea of filling them in later, doesn't mean that what it specifically says about such lists goes away, as though it didn't exist. Again, "However, rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use the wikiproject or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Encouraged = yes, must = no. REDLINK is a guideline, and may be deviated from. Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are sufficient valid articles listed to just remove the red parts. No reason to delete them per nomination. On another note, some of these imported lists might still soon be prodded for not having been translated within two weeks. See WP:PNT. De728631 (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is a proper procedure for the translation of articles from other wikipedias outlined at Translation, as they stand these articles are pretty much candidates for a2 or reduction to one line stubs-- Jac 16888 Talk 00:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition these articles have been listed at WP:PNT for the standard 2 weeks with no progress and therefore can be nominated for deletion based on that-- Jac 16888 Talk 00:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well List of châteaux in Languedoc-Roussillon List of châteaux in Limousin. List of châteaux in Picardy, List of châteaux in Normandy and List of châteaux in Overseas France all look close to translated or totally so and a ton of work has just been done by an anon on the others. --Oakshade (talk) 02:28, 31 December 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.