Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environmental protection and restoration 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 delete. Concerns remain that this list is too broad compared to more focused options. That said, if any users or WikiProjects want to adopt this list to work on more clearly defined alternatives, or to use as a watchlist for Special:Recentchangeslinked, I'll be happy to undelete it in user or project space. — TKD::Talk 06:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

List of environmental protection and restoration topics

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The list is too long to be useful, it extends well beyond the boundaries of the article title making it of little use, the article title gives two quite separate areas, and the category system suffices for what this list does. Alan Liefting 11:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. These List of ... topics articles are leftover from early days and are essentially article requests/categories. And I like lists. --Dhartung | Talk 12:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Wavelength created this list well after the categorisation system was in place. Alan Liefting 13:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Convert to Category then Delete. Probably [[:Category:Environmental protection and restoration articles]]. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, it's not a very good idea. Only deserves Delete. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 16:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Such a category would be like the current list - essentially two disparate areas of knowledge that do not belong together. There is already suitable categories such as Category:Environment and all of its sub-categories. Alan Liefting 13:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's time to play... Guess That Cruft! I'm going to name 3 seemingly-random things, see if you can guess the common thread between them.  Ready?  Firehose.  Cycleways in Wales, list of zoos in India.  Time's up!  Answer: they're all part of this unfocused everything-and-the-kitchen-sink list!  The grand prize tonight is a shiny new 2007 deletion, complete with air conditioning and California emissions. Goodnight folks! Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll see your deletion and raise you a kitchen sink. --Evb-wiki 15:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent points about the items that don't belong. So remove them. I can see how they got in on an overmechanical approach to finding the topics to list. Since you've suggested a way to improve the article, can we close as a keep and edit?  DGG (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If the list is kept the terms in the article title must be defined and it should be split into two separate articles of environmental protection and environmental restoration (whatever they may mean). The list must then be kept to articles that are relevant rather than attempting to list anything remotely connected with the topics. -- Alan Liefting talk 01:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Many of the things which protect the natural environment also restore it, and vice versa (or, in negative terms, they prevent and cure environmental problems), and that is why I listed them together. It is similar to listing together things which protect and restore human health (or, in negative terms, things which prevent and cure human health problems). -- Wavelength 14:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Environmental protection and restoration" is a rather vague and all encompassing topic. That is why the list has a series of disparate articles. A list MUST be a clearly defined topic in order to be of any use. The Category:Environment is set up to be the top level category for articles relating to environmental protection. -- Alan Liefting talk 10:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * well, we have some editing questions to discuss. but not here. Having kept it, we'll edit it.DGG (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep navigational tool, not something meant to be read as an article Mandsford 16:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Categories are also a navigational tool and in this case a better alternative. -- Alan Liefting talk 10:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, annotations, especially giving the country and alternative names make it superior to a category. These areas are not "entirely separate", they overlap so much that separate lists would be largely identical. Needs to be trimmed, that also doesn't require deletion. Kappa 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can agree that the the two topics are not entirely separate. A better alternative to a trimmed list would be an article called Environmental protection and restoration that would include relevant and notable points. A great deal of what is on this list is covered at List of environmental organizations, List of zoos, List of environmental sustainability topics, List of environmental issues etc and the extensive categories under Category:Environment. -- Alan Liefting talk 10:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   —Kappa 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kappa and Mandsford, as a navigation & research tool. Bearian 18:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is essentially an index page, or a site map.  Replace with category for any list that's this broad Corpx 20:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * People who like categories can use categories, and people who like lists can use lists, and people who like both can use both. For a subject as important as the natural environment, even ten different ways of organizing topics are not too many. -- Wavelength 21:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A list is only useful if it is organised and reflects the list name. The article name in this case is vague and the list is only organised alphabetically rather than by topic. There are numerous lists that are topic specific within Category:Environment. -- Alan Liefting talk 02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete it is better handled by specific wikiproject pages, rather than as something purporting to be encyclopedic content in mainspace. Carlossuarez46 21:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A possible wikiproject is Wikiproject Environment. -- Alan Liefting talk 02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Kappa and Mandsford, as a navigation & research tool. Mathmo Talk 22:54, 7 August 2007 (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.