Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of valleys of the United States


 * 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 The comments which do not call for deletion do not contain any compelling arguments for retention. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 14:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

List of valleys of the United States

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Redundant to Category:Valleys of the United States Ezeu (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * keep There is nothing in WP policy and guidelines that says Lists are to be deleted because a similar category exists. It is also factually untrue that the list and category contain the same information ('redundant'): the list includes many red links for valleys for which there are not (yet) WP articles; the category by its nature can never contain the redlinked valley names. Hmains (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The problem is the lack of parameters. This article has had a number of starts and stops over the years.  In June '06, someone added all of the Massachusetts locations that he was aware of, and that's the main reason that all of the redlinks are there.  Not every valley is inherently notable.  "Rattlesnake Gutter" may, technically, be in the same category as the "Missouri River Valley", but there is a great difference between the two. Mandsford (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Since the category is divided by state, and the list provides no other information than the state, I don' see why we should have it. I usually support lists because of their possibilities for expansion and arrangement, but I dont see much here.DGG (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per both of the above.   jj137  ( Talk ) 22:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There is some validity in an article like this, but it sets precedence if we keep it. I think it could be useful to have an article of this type has additional info, expanded out with maps, and locations, geograhical data. Where else would such an article be found, except in an specialist GIS/GS journal or website. If we keep it, we need it expanded, and additional linked articles for all other countries in the world. scope_creep (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If there's going to be a precedent, this would be a terrible precedent. There needs to be some distinction between the valleys that are defined by major rivers and their larger tributaries, and those which happen to be fed by creeks.  And there are lots and lots and lots of creeks, which feed branches, which feed rivers.  The same way, little hollows are part of larger valleys.  I have a feeling that the Massachusetts contributor may not have realized the difference.  On the other hand, I think that Wikipedia could make a project of cataloging the world's rivers, based on nature's own organizational system, by noting where they come from and where they go.  The rivers, of course, define the valleys.  Mandsford (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider for Keep. This article contains a lot of red links.  Such lists are potentially useful for identifying missing articles.  The question (which I am not qualified to answer is how many of the red link valleys are significant enough to warrant having an article.  In England (where I am), there are articles on many rivers and apparatus to provide links to tributaries.  Nevertheless, classification by main river would be preferable to this indiscriminate list.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 19 November 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.