Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rivers of India


 * 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 per arguments made by those supporting that it is not redundant to either category or another article. Davewild (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

List of rivers of India

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a redundant article. The information provided here can very well be merged into the article, Rivers of India. If it is a list of rivers that is needed, Category:Rivers of India is sufficient. ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 09:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 09:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Better as a cat. faithless   (speak)  09:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Zagalejo^^^ 09:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I dont see the need of two articles, one titled Rivers of India and the other titled List of rivers of India. If it is an alphabetical name list that is needed, there is a category already. If a detailed article is needed, Rivers of India is already present. We dont need duplicate articles, that eventually should contain the same thing. Hence the nom. -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits  —Preceding comment was added at 09:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment There is too much data here to be included in the Rivers of India article, and it has some useful info that a single cat cannot include. Unless this info is included in articles about the respective areas, seas etc or we have cats like "Rivers that fall into the Arabian Sea", it may be better to let it stay. Tintin 09:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: I do not see what the article List of rivers of India can contain that is different from the what the article Rivers of India should contain. The vice-versa is also true. IMHO, one of the article among the two should remain, not both. -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 11:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep . NOT redundant with a category, and much better at presenting the information. A category does not contain the redlinks that this list does. The category cannot thread the entries to show which rivers are tributaries to which rivers. Passes all criteria and purposes of Lists, it is an informational and structured list, it helps navigating the encyclopedia due to the structure, and the redlinks serve a developmental purpose. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: I completely agree with you that a category will not be sufficiently informative of what List of rivers of India could contain. But we already have an article Rivers of India which essentially does the same thing. Why do we need the redundancy unless there is a compelling reason for doing so? Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 11:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, fair point. :-) But isn't redirect better than outright deletion? Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That thought did occur to me. However, I did not see a compelling reason for letting the article be redirected to Rivers of India. When the article 'X' is there, would you really need 'List of X' (with its history and associated space that it consumes) to be redirected to 'X'. Any wikilink or searches would be made on the term "rivers" and "India", and the List of rivers of India would not serve much purpose than by just being a redirect. -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 16:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This information in this article cannot be fully represented in a category because its redlinks cannot be included in a category. Rivers of India redirects to Major rivers of India, so these two articles are complementary, not duplicate. All the rivers in List of rivers of India cannot be included in Major rivers of India because not all of the rivers are major. "List of X" is a plausible search term, I for one use it all the time. Bláthnaid 20:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * keep This is exactly what WP lists are for and such lists rightly exist in WP for many countries of the world (170 such lists for countries and states). To quote WP policy on lists which many editors need to read:
 * 2. Information: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. 3. Navigation: Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind, they would likely use the See also lists. If the user has a specific research goal in mind, and there is only one or two words that are used to describe the research topic, and they know exactly how to spell the word, they would probably use the search engine box. If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).WP:LIST. Does the list need improvement?  Then do so. Hmains 04:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Agree with ">Bláthnaid. Contents of List of rivers of India is exhaustive whereas Major rivers of India deals with specific major rivers of India. This list may lead a Wikipedian to contribute content on the 'redlinked' rivers. Category won't do imho. Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 10:18, 5 December 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.