Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries exempt from rabies quarantines (2 nomination)


 * 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 - as an "indiscriminate collection" issue, which is essentially subjective, this comes down mainly to the weight of opinion; hence, no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

List of countries exempt from rabies quarantines
Indiscriminate list, 2nd nom. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MER-C 12:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not an indiscriminate list, but rather the list established under United Kingdom law and found at a United Kingdom government site, http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/quarantine/pets/procedures/support-info/countries.htm See also Pet passport. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If this list is nothing more than that found at a UK site, then the proper option is to put the URL as a link in an appropriate article, or articles. For example pet passport would seem to be the proper choice. FrozenPurpleCube 14:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - while this list may be extremely useful it's not encyclopedic. Moreschi 13:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not encyclopedic. DCEdwards1966 16:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep backed by the reference from the UK gov site. I could certainly see people looking this up whilst planning vacations and such. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge: I don't really understand this nomination. There's nothing "indiscriminate" about this list. The verifiability issues are easily remedied. Also those using "not encyclopedic" as a deletion criterion must have a subjective definition of that word which they're not telling us. Having said that, it's too short & not useful enough to be an article in its own right and there's no scope for expansion. A merge to pet passport seems the obvious solution. AndyJones 09:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, and require that the nominator and supporters above reread WP:NOT ten times each. I think that some editors don't really understand what "encyclopedic" means, especially as it applies to Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't your typical encyclopedia, having already become the largest encyclopedia in the world and the one with the widest scope.  The point is you should be able to find anything you are looking for on Wikipedia, or be directed to it.  For example, we don't generally have recipe collections in this encyclopedia, but we certainly have links to them. And I didn't see the pro-deleters above mention anything about providing access of any kind to this useful list they want to delete, which one of them admits is highly useful.  One thing Wikipedia is reknowned for is its lists.  We have many thousands of lists on just about everything you can imagine.  Many of those lists are about the most frivolous of subjects, yet they are deemed "encyclopedic".  And here we have a list that travellers with pets may find quite useful.  We have articles on travelling (and this is one of them).  We have many articles on pets (and this is one of them).  We have articles on rabies and a great many other diseases (and this is one of them). We have articles on customs regulations, and this is one of them.  That's four encyclopedic subjects by which this article is differentiated from all the rest, narrowing its focus down to a very specific issue, and you say it is indiscriminate.  How about these lists and the their underlying articles:
 * List of Pokémon by name
 * List of Pokémon by stage
 * List of Pokémon by National Pokédex number
 * List of Pokémon by Johto Pokédex number
 * List of Pokémon by Hoenn Pokédex number
 * List of Pokémon by Shin'ou Pokédex number
 * They're considered encyclopedic, and yet you think this real world and useful list is less encyclopedic than those? You need to read WP:NOT again, and when you do, please explain to me exactly how this article is indiscriminate with respect to that policy's definition of the term.     Th e Tr ans hu man ist      11:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, damnit, it's a very useful list. But can you imagine Britannica, even if they had indefinite space, including something like this? Wikipedia is not a travel guide. This is a useful list purely for travellers. Surely the obvious solution is to include a link to this (i.e to the UK government site) at the bottom of the Pet passport article? WP:NOT AN INDISCRIMINATE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION. Wikipedia should not be including advice. Then it's not an encyclopedia. Moreschi 11:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Britannica argument" holds no merit whatsoever on Wikipedia which goes way beyond other encyclopedias in scope. Wikipedia abounds with articles and lists that currently don't appear in Britannica or any other formal encyclopedia.  Wikipedia is more informal, like Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and includes lists such as the List of films that most frequently use the word fuck, a very useful movie guide indeed (I've watched almost every movie on there, and will watch the rest when I get around to it). :) Britannica will probably never have articles like that!!!!  But Wikipedia does.  And the list in question isn't purely for travellers - see my comment below.     Th e Tr ans hu man ist     14:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Per What Wikipedia is not, point #2 "Travel guides." GRBerry 02:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believe you've taken point #2 out of context. This list is a bit more important than "the phone number or address of your favorite hotel in Paris".  Here's the policy you cited:
 * 2. Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
 * And the list in question goes beyond travel, in that it indicates countries in which rabies isn't considered a major problem, which makes it significant to Wikipedia from a geographical perspective. I think the article should expand on this point, but it can't do so if it is deleted!    Th e Tr ans hu man ist     04:38, 20 October 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.