Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the United States National Park System official units


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The discussion did not generate a consensus as to whether, as a fork, the article is redundant or justified. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

List of the United States National Park System official units

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Wikipedia already has a well-made and featured list at List of areas in the United States National Park System for units in the National Park Service. Much of the text from this list proposed for deletion is copied verbatim in the featured list linked. Thus, this list should be deleted as WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Zkidwiki (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep While similar to the list of areas, this list only includes the official units, excluding former sites, redesignated sites, certain combination sites, affiliated areas, authorized sites, non-unit rivers, non-unit parkways, non-unit trails, cemetaries, and groupings of sites. It also has the benefit of listing all units in a single list to allow for full alphabetical sorting and sorting by state. While there is duplication, I believe this this subarticle is warranted as a distinct subset. Some sources include . Reywas92Talk 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I wish to consider your point, but the list proposed for deletion does not have almost anything you mentioned, including: former sites, redesignated sites, affiliated areas, authorized sites, or cemeteries. I do not know why you would propose to keep an inferior list that has none of the content you desire to see. Zkidwiki (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, the official unit list isn't supposed to have any of those because they're not the same list. This is not an inferior list, it's a complementary list that only has the official units presented together, without the areas that are not units. What if I don't desire to see all of that? Reywas92Talk 19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We can't have a different list for every potential way to sort a list of items. Even if I were to agree with you, this list is just a directory that repeats any given excel sheet you can acquire from the park service. It is unnecessary to main the accuracy of two separate lists, one of which provides no information other than a state (even the type of unit is not sortable). Also, the list is far too long to read--there are over 400 units. It is ineffective other than to serve as a stand-in for an excel sheet when the featured list provides a digestible series of information. Zkidwiki (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding a column for type of unit is something I've thought would be useful for quite some time. Further improvements would be welcome. Reywas92Talk 21:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Lists,  and United States of America. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Seems like a useful list, navigation-wise. Oaktree b (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * delete I don't think this is useful. It's incomplete and has less information, and I don't see what two lists is getting us. It would make more sense to concentrate on the usability of the other, complete listing. Mangoe (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: The list is extremely useful for those that want to see the entire list of NPS official units uninterrupted by descriptions of the types of units, former units, etc. It's not too long to read for those that are, for lack of a better term, fans of the NPS. I have used it doing research more than the List of Areas page. OneEarDrummer (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete National_Park_Service already has this information, and the fold out templates link to the various list articles that have things in them. List of national monuments of the United States, List_of_areas_in_the_United_States_National_Park_System, List of national lakeshores and seashores of the United States, etc.   D r e a m Focus  11:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Dream Focus and Mangoe. Simply being useful is not enough to justify this redundant fork. JoelleJay (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment' if this sortable list is useful, why can't it go into the main article? If it needs to be separate because it's directly duplicating content in the main article, that feels like a reason to delete it.  Rjjiii  (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That would make the main article a bit long in my opinion. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would make the main article long (either on the NPS page or the NPS areas page), but I would rather have that than for the content to be completely deleted. The table needs to exist somewhere. The NPS areas page has too much additional information to just say someone can dig through all of it to find the list of the current NPS official units. Forgive me for not knowing the terminology, but perhaps it could be "collapsed" on the main NPS page. OneEarDrummer (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm only a casual editor, but I am a heavy wikipedia reader, and this list page has been super useful for me. If it didn't exist as is, then I would've not found the info I needed all in one place. I'd have had to go wading through dozens of other pages and probably given up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.176.175 (talk • contribs) 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: The US parks system is a large subject matter that requires multiple articles and etc. to work on. I'm one of the editors who has relied on this list, and others, for editing related to the subject of the parks system.  This list is vital to me, and others who tend to the subject matter and the other related articles and lists. If someone can't see that need, then maybe they just don't take on the kind of editing that needs this list.  But please don't deprive those who do rely on this list. — Maile  (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with those who vote Keep. While there are similarities between the other list, this one is more useful and easier to differentiate between the various units. The other article includes multiple entries for the same unit and often across different sections which makes it difficult to understand which are actual units. If it's determined that this list should not be its own article, I believe a healthy compromise would be to have this list included in some capacity in the other article. Removing the list entirely and leaving no space for it to be utilized by users would be unfair to the entire community and exemplify the worst practices when valuable information is deleted from the site without any recourse. 108.48.176.251 (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: This way of organizing the very large US national parks system makes it easier for the everyday reader to find whatever information they are attempting to find. I'd say keep it. - Navarre0107 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a good argument for AfDs. -1ctinus📝  🗨  20:23, 4 June 2024 (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.