Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of volcanoes in Republic of Macedonia


 * 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 without prejudice against a later merge pending further talk page discussion. — TKD::Talk 10:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

List of volcanoes in Republic of Macedonia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Hardly any content(Name of one volcanoe) and said content is already mentioned in other articles Pheonix15 23:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I speedied it as A1, but had a complain in my talk page so restroed, Delete for lack of content. Jaranda wat's sup 17:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a legitimate part of a wider list. When things like Lists of volcanoes are subdivided, as often becomes necessary, it is inevitable that some of the subdivisions will be small, but that does not mean that they should be deleted. If Lists of volcanoes covered all volcanoes directly, removing this volcano would be treated as vandalism, but it had to be subdivided as it would breach the size limits many times over as a single article. Subdivisions also allows the material to be categorised to national categories, which improves the navigability of Wikipedia's coverage of volcanoes. Postlebury 19:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's one volcano! It's mentioned in many articles - Pheonix15 20:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indeed, the smaller sections of a wider list may be smaller, but those smaller sections might not be as necessary as their larger counterparts. It's only one item that is being maintained and covered elsewhere, thus, I'd say to delete it. bwowen talk•contribs• review me please! 04:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, one item does not a list make. Punkmorten 06:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that it's a list of one is neither here nor there. It is part of a wider system. Judge its role in the overall scheme of things, not the slightly unfortunate name. Carina22 15:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with parent list or (better) into a list of Volcanoes in Europe. This also applies to many of the lists in the parent list list of terrestrial volcanoes.  This author of all these articles (assuming it is one author) needs to be much more selective in what he includes.  Rock formations of volcanic origin (from the remote geological past) ought to be dealt with separately, and excluded from this series of lists.  In non-volcanic regions (such as most of Europe) a single list dealing with the content (or a substantial part of it) should be sufficient.  As far as I know, the few active or dormant volcanoes in Europe are largely along the Mediterranean - Etna, Stromboli, Vesuvius, plus Santorini (or Thera - erupted about 3500 years ago).  Peterkingiron 16:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with this Merge logic. Make geographic divisions, not national ones. This single-country listing is tedious. Volcanos of Africa makes a lot more sense. MarkinBoston 22:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The system applied for breaking down the global list should be consistent across the board, ie based on countries in all cases, or it will just be messy and confusing. This method of breaking it down also facilities categorisation of the break out articles, as the category system uses countries as the most important means of breaking the world down by geography. Brandon97 13:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Postlebury. Beorhtric 16:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Citi Cat   ♫  02:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Postlebury and Brandon97. Though this be madness, yet there is method in it. Dbromage  [Talk]  02:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Madness? THIS IS MACEDONIA!  ...sorry.  Ichormosquito 04:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * At least you didn't make the potentially fatal mistake of a Shakespearian reply of "It's all Greek to me"! Grutness...wha?  01:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep, this is part of a system of lists to ease categorization. Besides, maybe they miscounted. --Dhartung | Talk 04:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe the problem is that the main Lists of volcanoes article only links to sub-lists, even when some of these lists have less than a handful of volcanoes. Perhaps the fact that this article makes sense within the grander scheme of things simply denotes a problem with the grander scheme of things. Calgary 05:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Another Comment I know that this isn’t really the appropriate place to bring this up, and I will be raising the issue on the main Lists of volcanoes talk page, but take note that using this system there are currently 44 articles listing regions which have only 5 volcanoes or less.


 * Afghanistan (2)
 * Armenia (5)
 * Ascension Island (1)
 * Brazil (1)
 * Cambodia (1)
 * Cape Verde (3)
 * Comoros (2)
 * Democratic Republic of the Congo (5)
 * Djibouti (4)
 * Dominica (5)
 * Equatorial Guinea (3)
 * Fiji (4)
 * France (1)
 * Georgia (4)
 * Grenada (2)
 * Guadeloupe (1)
 * Honduras (4)
 * India (4)
 * Korea (5)
 * Libya (2)
 * Madagascar (5)
 * Malaysia (1)
 * Martinique (1)
 * Mongolia (5)
 * Montserrat (1)
 * Myanmar (3)
 * Netherlands Antilles (1)
 * Nigeria (1)
 * Norway (5)
 * Pacific Ocean (4)
 * Pakistan (5)
 * Panama (3)
 * Poland (3)
 * Macedonia (1)
 * Réunion (2)
 * Rwanda (3)
 * Saint Kitts and Nevis (2)
 * Saint Lucia (1)
 * São Tomé and Príncipe (1)
 * South Africa (2)
 * Sudan (5)
 * Tristan da Cunha (1)
 * Wallis Islands (3)
 * Western Samoa (2)


 * Still, that being said, I can understand a list, under certain circumstances, including only 5, or maybe even 4 items, but still, that leaves 29 articles that only list 3 volcanoes, and if that’s not enough there are 14 articles that only list 1. Surely, if this is the system of classification we’re using, it’s not a very good one. Calgary 06:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. I understand the reason behind it even if it is a list of one. If there is a consensus to restructure the lists of volcanoes then it can be merged, but that's not a discussion for this AfD. Thin Arthur 08:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Part of a system. - Darwinek 10:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as part of a wider system, and for facilitation of by-country categorization. Golfcam 14:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Although I do wish there was a larger list, I understand the fact that is in part of a large system. TheInfinityZero 16:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep' - part of a larger system.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    23:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe he should list volcanoes per continent, if the list is not too long or categories on Volcanoes per continent. Other I'm not gonna issue a vote.--JForget 23:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, that would be one way to do it, with countries that have a significant number of Volcanoes being spun off on their own list. FrozenPurpleCube 23:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but (and I'm surprised no-one else noticed this) move to List of volcanoes in the Republic of Macedonia. Grutness...wha?  01:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh stuff it. The link in the heading of this page is to a redirect. Ignore that. Grutness...wha?  01:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Whoa! I never expected this to be so contraversial!--  Pheonix15  ( talk )   14:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the things you expect that get you, it's the things you don't expect. FrozenPurpleCube 17:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge all volcano lists with few constituents inot regional groupings. This is a restatement of my view expressed above.  The wider system is legitimate, but complete lists containing a mere two or three items are a waste of time.  Peterkingiron 10:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Other volcano lists are not the subject of this AfD. This discussion is about a single article. This article is part of a logical but admittedly cumbersome system. If the system itself needs changing, that's a discussion that needs to take place elsewhere. Dbromage  [Talk]  04:42, 28 August 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.