Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of climbing areas


 * 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. THere does appear to be a consensus that this article is too vague, or at least could be replicated by a category. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

List of climbing areas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is supposedly a list of climbing areas. But what it consists of is a mostly unreferenced list of areas that may or may not have Wikipedia articles where climbing may or may not have occurred. The articles linked are not to climbing areas insomuch as cities/towns where climbing occurs, which to some extent is pretty much everywhere. The articles listed very rarely (in ever, I didn't find even one on a small, random sample) even have anything written about climbing. A list of climbing areas may be a notable list, but the list that is currently present would have to be trimmed to near nothingness and re-written from scratch. A better solution would be to simply delete the current list and let someone start over. Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep This list has been developing for nine years now. The nominator wants to delete it and start again.  But we can tell that he's not going to be the one doing this work as there was nothing stopping him just getting on with it immediately by editing the article.  The idea seems to be that some mind-reading, clever climber is going to stop by and rebuild all this again.  But who's that going to be once you've annoyed all the existing contributors by deleting their work?  I've got a better idea — let's just improve the page as it stands.  Per the parable of the stone soup, I have just tossed a rock into the pot. Warden (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid WP:SK reason. I have trimmed the list (to zero entries) based on your suggestion though. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your action demonstrates the frivolous nature of your nomination. See WP:SK#2 Warden (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the closing admin will give this !vote the weight it deserves: zero. The same amount of weight all the rest of your AfD votes should be given. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nathan Johnson, you just removed everything without checking. I hade a quick scan of the article and I think around 10-15 links are to articles describing climbing areas. That means that indeed most of the artickel should be trimmed away but also that there is enough left to keep the article.Nico (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Just making a WP:POINT and being a WP:DICK. If someone hadn't restored it quickly, I would have. What criteria did you use to justify that 10-15 articles describe "climbing areas". Just looking at the list items, some should be about climbing (imho), but actually the climbing parts are minusculely small. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Actually, despite the ideas that this can be built again, and the debating going on about that, I would argue that this list is not notable enough per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Unless the articles linked were specifically those about climbing, and they're not, not to mention the large amount of red links that possibly indicate original research, I don't think a list of just areas for climbing is discriminate enough to have a list.  I think it would be akin to having a list of every swimming pool in the world, or something of that sort.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 23:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see Swimming venues by country for an extensive tree of categories and lists which cover places people can swim. Your example therefore demonstrates the appropriateness of doing something similar for climbing. Warden (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a category, not a list. Category:Climbing areas already exists. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I have just reverted a blanking of the article. This is not a reasonable thing to do during an AfD discussion. Whether or not an article is justified can be best judged if people can immediately see the article  DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The current list is too open-ended and needs some constraints. Perhaps start with the requirement for a climbing guide from a reputable publisher, as mentioned on the climbing area article. Praemonitus (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep after removal of all areas that do not have an article on WP, or at least a whole section on climbing in the article of the place.Nico (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 3, 2013; 19:16 (UTC) 19:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CSC; too few bluelinks and refs. Category:Climbing areas already exists, and lists don't need to duplicate categories.  Mini  apolis  00:12, 4 June 2013 (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.