Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of informal regions


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Lists of informal regions

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

This article doesn't seem to have a point. It is totally unsourced and pretty much just WP:OR. ┌ Joshii ┐└ chat ┘ 23:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Unsourced, POV, OR. The book is being thrown at this by me! --Jza84 | Talk  00:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: There's no criteria for inclusion, and if there is some widespread or common use of the term, I haven't heard it before, nor is it in the article. LH (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think there's any need for this "list of lists", which appears to be a list of Wikipedia articles entitled "list of regions of _____". Whatever else bad I can say about it, it's certainly not "original research" or "unsourced", and I'd say that POV would be a hard sell too.  Anyone can verify that, yes, the blue links actually are articles on Wikipedia, as claimed by the author.  Perhaps it was intended as a navigational aid.  In this case, the category "Regions by country" is more useful for that purpose, and some of these lists need to have that tag slapped on them. Mandsford (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is original research because it admits they are "informal" meaning not official, as a list they are purely POV as to what counts as an "informal region". ┌ Joshii ┐└ chat ┘ 04:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It is perfectly clear what is meant by 'informal' if you actualy read the articles opening line, or any one of the included lists. If you don't like the name of it, request a move. There is certainly no OR or POV being asserted here, at all. MickMacNee (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Howard Alexander (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It is not "POV" as it contains no points of view. It is well sourced and linked. It is a useful, and used, resource.
 * Um, it has no sources. --Jza84 | Talk  18:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - far better served by a category than a list, and such could easily be made - assuming that some standardised definition of exactly what an "informal region" is could be found... is probably a far better idea. Grutness...wha?  22:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Categories are not lists. MickMacNee (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point. Lists usually have information that is not possible in categories - in cases where they do not have such extra information, categories are usually preferable. A category containing all the pages linked in the current page would be far more appropriate than a "List of lists" linkfarm article, and indeed most "Lists of lists" are more appropriate as "Categories of lists" - such as all these. Grutness...wha?  05:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as there are no sources at all, and it's hopelessly full of original research because there is no unambiguous definition of what exactly constitutes an "informal region". Reyk  YO!  04:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Every single list on this list of lists has a definition of what kind of 'unnofficial region' it lists. Sources indeed, you could find a source for every single entry in seconds. MickMacNee (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Having a look through the entries, the Czech one isn't a list at all, the French and Greek ones list places that used to be formal regions, the Irish one contains some areas that still are formal regions and the Australian entry is a list of vaguely delineated geographical areas. This haphazard accumulation of somewhat related but substantially different types of lists is a good example of an indiscriminate collection of information. As for sources, the burden of proof lies with the people arguing to keep. Reyk  YO!  05:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever. If you honestly think the pedia is better off without it than with it, then that's your call. I can't see what is being violated regarding original research/synthesis, and indiscriminate is barley applicable at all. I guess we will never know who/why/when anybody would ever look at this list. MickMacNee (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as inherently original research. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2008 (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.