Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of waterways


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

List of waterways

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

If this page was ever to be completed, which is highly unlikely, it will be incredibly lengthy. A better page would be Lists of waterways (note the "s"). All the good links need to be pulled out of this article and put in the suggested article before deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It boils down to a desire to make it "lists" because it, indeed, has lists in the list? Make "lists" and then redirect it here rather than delete this. Collect (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Having a Lists of waterways will be a much shorter and therefore a more usable article for navigation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I hate lists. If anything, this should be a category. What is the purpose of this article? Will anyone actually search for this title? What could reasonabily link to such a title? I just see no purpose for this article now or ever. Timneu22 (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All the lists on here should link to this one. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If it gets too long it can be split. Is the nominator going to put all the other "list of"s up for AfD too? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If it was anywhere even close to half complete it would be an extremely long list as to become unwieldly. Your comment of "all the other "list of"s up for AfD" smacks of black and white thinking. I am happy with lists as long as they are useful for WP but it seems that some editors get a little carried away with creating lists. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it should be split into list(s) of canals and lists of rivers which already exists. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. Good idea. Lists of water ways could be a sort of dab page at a top of a hierarchy that will have the Lists of rivers, Lists of canals etc. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Can be split or whatever based on discussion page process. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This is what Categories are for. THF (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like a good list to me. Categories can't contain redlinks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is a need for redlinks as an editing tool it can be usified. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Delete Lists are hugely useful (See WP:LISTS) and serve very different purposes than do categories (see WP:CLN). This actually seems to be am amalgam of a list of waterways and a list of lists of waterways. Both types are useful.&mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 21:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed my opinion. I spent some time on Lists of rivers and think that this list is no longer needed. Maybe need a Lists of canals&mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 00:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge all river list information into Lists of rivers and its sub-lists; keep the rest and possibly rename to List of canals, estuaries, and firths. DHowell (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am currently cleaning out redundant links and checking to see if they are listed in the individual country lists. I have found the the List of rivers of Foo articles are more comprehensive. I don't agree with a List of canals, estuaries, and firths article as a replacement. Firstly I find lists that are not annotated to be of little value and a list that includes canals, firths and estuaries is linking built and natural features in an, ahem - well, unnatural way! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 12:12, 22 January 2009 (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.