Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of geography topics (0-9)


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

List of geography topics (0-9)

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

This page and all the related pages are a list of place names with a scattering geographical science terms. As a list of place names it will never be complete and it is an unwieldy list. I intend to edit List of geography topics as a page solely for the terms used in the science to replace this page and the ones listed below. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Liefting (talk • contribs) 2008/10/16 02:52:55


 * Delete These "list of geography topics" has turned into "list of places and some geography terms" which is not really what topics means. The cleanup you have planned sounds very sensible. The information here is all covered by the category "Geography", so there is nothing being lost. Onward. xschm (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to Merge per Andy Jones below. xschm (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all These lists have gotten far too bloated to trim down to actual geography topics. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I almost said that merging is not an AfD issue, but you are proposing a more structured list with better inclusion criteria than just being in the category (necessary per SAL). Naming conventions (long lists) might still come into play with the more useful list, but that is an editorial decision not for AfD. 192.42.92.28 (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Note This discussion has been posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. 192.42.92.28 (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete overblown list which has been abused beyond recognition. JBsupreme (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is what categories are for. Themfromspace (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree With Everyone Above Except why is the conclusion "delete"?: Surely this is an editorial issue not an AfD one. Alan Liefting should perform his cleanup, then redirect all these articles to the cleaned-up page. That's what we call a merge (or smerge). (PS: I've just noticed the ANON above making the same point, and I agree.) (PPS: I don't agree with Themfromspace's delete vote either, which is a "redundant with categogy" and is wrong per the guideline at WP:CLN). AndyJones (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Generally, you are right, but this case is different because of the way these pages are named. I think redirect is inappropriate here. Redirect is used to send a reader to the page with content when they type in a sensible title that isn't where the content happens to be. In this case it is a good idea to get rid of the articles with parentheses in the names. Nobody expects these pages to exist. Therefore, delete. xschm (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. No, I don't think that's correct, for two reasons: firstly, where material is merged or smerged the original content needs to be preserved for GFDL reasons: and it's the redirect page where that preservation happens. Secondly, your worry about whether a redirect is sensible is an overestimate of how much redirects cost: they really are verrrrry cheap. Of course redirects work at their best in the circumstances you describe. But it is always worth retaining a redirect just for those people who have worked on the article at some point and have it on their watchlist. There's really no need whatsoever to bother asking whether a redirect is a good one or not. AndyJones (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you mean. A redirect certainly does no harm. I have to say that I think the GFDL issues are a little strained when we are talking about a list like this--I mean, there isn't much in the way of actual content. But deleting is probably more trouble than redirecting, so why not redirect and keep the history, such as it is. xschm (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I chose not to merge of redir is that the page titles have no use after a merge or redir. I chose not to do a cleanup and then redir since it is far easier to start from scratch rather than wading thought the 27 articles to pick out the occasional link that is of use. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but:
 * If you think the new page will be easier to create from scratch, rather than copying across info from the existing lists, while removing the ones you don't want, then surely you are wrong.
 * If you think you are more likely to produce a comprehensive list without the existing lists as a resource, then surely you are wrong.
 * Suppose you don't do it. Suppose you die tomorrow or become disenchanted with Wikipedia or decide to devote all your time to Wikiproject Clangers. Then we will be asking "Where has our Geography navigation gone?" "we deleted it because someone called Alan said he was going to do something better." "And did he?" "No, I don't think so, but we have got this sub-stub".
 * Suppose it takes you longer than you think to complete: suppose you complete the new page in two months or six months or two years. In the meantime we have to do without this part of Geography navigation.
 * Suppose your version isn't very good: in six months time we're thinking "well, it was a good idea, but it didn't really work out because ." We'd be unable to simply go back.
 * As I've mentioned above, the usefulness or otherwise of a redirect isn't something we need to concern ourselves with in the process of editing - it's certainly not a basis on which to make any larger decision. Redirects really are very cheap.
 * All in all, what I'm saying is: your proposal is a merge proposal. Perform it as a merge. AndyJones (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Another option is to rename the articles as List of place names! But this would create an unwieldly and incomplete list. With regards to your assertion that it should be a merge, I would agree if there was content that could be merged. As the articles stand there is very little that needs merging into a List of geography topics. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was almost going to start on List of geography topics before the afd process had finished but I do not want to make an assumption about the result. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Ten Pound Hammer, no need to merge.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  19:39, 20 October 2008 (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.