Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities and towns along the Ohio River


 * 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   delete and redirect to Ohio River. Shereth 18:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

List of cities and towns along the Ohio River

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

listcruft Keikeik (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. The same info is repeated a couple of times, just in different orders. I'm just not seeing the use, but maybe someone will convince me to change my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 16:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unnecessary duplicate of Ohio River. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless substantial improvements are made. The current presentation, with a new line devoted for each indiscriminate blue link, renders this useless.  If you were to print it out, it would run for 30 pages; somebody could get carpal from trying to scroll through this.   A sortable table might be worthwhile, but would require some marker to identify how far down the river a port might be.  Mandsford (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you'd want to delete it if you think format improvements could render it a useful article. Wikipedia is a work in progress, there's no need to delete an article because it has resolvable issues that haven't been resolved yet. --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not so fast there are several such lists, and I can imagine a number of uses. Can we contact the many people who have edited these river town lists, or someone who edits American geography.  There are many useful lists on Wikipedia that can look arcane to most of the world, but are nevertheless useful.Historicist (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case at least, the article in question duplicates information already on the article about the river. There is no point in maintaining two separate articles with the same information. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  —Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - redundant listcruft, arguably original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article does have value and merit. I think it should be kept. At least merge and redirect to Ohio River &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk
 * Keep "listcruft", the nom's only rationale for deletion, is not shown in any policies as being a reason for deletion. Sebwite (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful list. I'm surprised there are no other "List of cities and town along the foo river".  Could be culled to sortable table &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 04:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They are such useful lists they appear as a section on most articles about significant rivers, for example the list of cities and towns along the Ohio river appears at Ohio River. Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to the Ohio river article. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge as a sortable table to the Ohio river article, so it can be sorted in downstream or alphabetical order, and each of those by state. If that's too much work, then keep and let the editors of the list work it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentI agree that the information about how far the ports are downstream should be merged into the main article about the Ohio River, although
 * definitely
 * not
 * in
 * the
 * current
 * format
 * which
 * is
 * unreadable. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge. Main article has the main information. List is a bit excessive. Reywas92 Talk  22:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment | This reference has the information that could be incorporated into a sortable table to illustrate the order of the towns from Pittsburgh to Cairo. Mandsford (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment | This reference has the information that could be incorporated into a sortable table to illustrate the order of the towns from Pittsburgh to Cairo. Mandsford (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Very useful list, mainly boaters and mariners would use this list, but it is a good list.TPOLMike (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a very useful list, whether for boaters, mariners or whoever, but it duplicates the one that already exists at Ohio River, so the question isn't "Do we remove this information from Wikiepdia" but "Do we really need two copies of the same information on Wikipedia that we will need to keep synchronised manually?" Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh please. As if boaters and mariners are going to use this!  A road atlas would be more useful and efficient.  "What's the next place on the river?" "I dunno-- I'm still scrolling." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs)
 * 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.