Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lakes by volume


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  Lourdes  13:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

List of lakes by volume

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The List of lakes by area has a table that can be sorted by volume; this article is redundant with that option of the other article's sortable table. Georgia guy (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Then why wouldn't we just redirect it there? postdlf (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, if someone is wanting to look up the volumes of lakes, why would we wish to impede them when a source of help is so readily available? Thincat (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment There is also a list of lakes by depth which is also somewhat redundant: it has a mean depth display which the other list lacks, but the "area" list does include depth. My suggestion would be to rename List of lakes by area to list of lakes by size and merge the others into it. Mangoe (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep even though I agree with Mangoe who has made a very worthwhile suggestion. AFD is a forum for deletion and is not a good venue for deciding such editorial matters, especially when the AFD has been launched with a nomination contrary to WP:Deletion policy. I suggest these changes are made after this discussion closes when there would be an opportunity for talk page discussion, if any is required. Thincat (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that some discussion and sensible editing might lead to some kind of merger, but it is not so simple as just merging the contents of the two or three articles and ensuring that sorting works.  The set of lakes has to make sense, and I doubt that you can find any small set of N lakes which is both the top N by area and the top N by volume.  The list of 30 or however many lakes covered in the by-area article is the biggest by area, i.e. a different list than the 20 or however many lakes in the by-volume article, which are the biggest by volume.  If you just merged them, then the list sorted by area would be the top 30 then random others, not a sensible list. If you somehow could list _all_ lakes in the world and had their proper size measurements, sure, sorting either way would be fine.  Go ahead, do that!  There can't be more than a million of them. :)  Realisticly, all you could do if you really wanted a merged article would be to have two complete lists in different sections.  Or three sections if you wanted by-depth.  In which case it would be perfectly reasonable to split out the 2 or 3 sections to separate list-articles.... -- do  ncr  am  04:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Ah, good, that's the most helpful remark yet. I hadn't thought of that. I'm confirmed in my feeling that keep would be the best decision. Thincat (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a useful criterion for ranking lakes. As others have pointed out the list would be different for criteria like depth or area, so it isn't just a matter of sorting the same list different ways.  Possibly a long article "Lists of lakes by dimension" consisting of a set of lists could work with redirects from "List of lakes by area", "List of lakes by volume", etc, but doesn't it make more sense to provide the information in separate articles corresponding to user searches? Marco polo (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2017 (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.