Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of topics by country and region


 * 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 close, procedural keep; if you're going to nominate the lists within these categories, nominate them separately. --Core desat 03:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Lists of topics by country and Category:Lists of topics by region
OK, there is no easy way to do this, because our deletion templates are being to smart and preventing me from doing it right (namespace confusion). So I am filling this AfD 'by hand', and yes, it should be at AfD, not at CfD and not and MfD. I filled it at MfD first but consensus was to move it here (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category:Lists of topics by country, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category:Lists of topics by region). I am proposing to delete all lists articles in those categories (and than categories themselves), but lists (articles) are the primary target. The reason for deletions is: few of those lists are maintained and they are a relic of the past: each country (and region) has way to many related topics to fit on one page; this is what country (region) specific categories are for. Later we may want to consider getting rid of all lists here, but for now, just think: an average country has thousands of related articles. A list with thousand entries is cumbersome and useless, as the categories were designed to automate the process. Most of those lists are not maintained. If you really like them, we can archive them or tag as historical... but basically they are dead weight that may occasionally distract a new user and make them waste their time adding something to those forgotten junk pages.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While I can understand that you may want something done, the fact that there are so many lists tends to point to me that this isn't something that can be handled well in AfD. Some of these lists may be unmaintained as you claim, some may be redundant to categories.  Some, however, may not?   Reviewing them all to find out which is which?  Not something I think could be handled in a single AfD even for the country.  I suggest coming up with a different plan to handle this problem, perhaps soliciting some feedback through the Village pump.  And since you haven't added the AfD template to all the subpages, I don't think this discussion can proceed anyway.  I suggest you withdraw this and look for another solution.  FrozenPurpleCube 06:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Lack of the AfD template on the subpages is really just a sign that they ought to be placed there, not a reason to abort any discussion here - otherwise we're getting a little overly fixated on letter by letter process - as a general rule of thumb. That said, I agree that this situation is a little complicated and I too doubt that an AfD nomination like this is the appropriate way to handle the issue.  By posting up a category and saying "This is supposed to be a blanket nomination for all the articles contained therein" is putting a bit of a burden on participating editors by expecting them to go through the categories and checking out the articles.  I know it seems like a lot of work on your part, but as the nominator you really should be nominating the individual lists themselves, not as a category.  You can bundle them into a mass nomination if you'd like but FrozenPurpleCube is right, your best bet is to withdraw this nomination and figure out the best way to approach the situation, perhaps by seeking input from other users.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't think the main reason for closing this discussion is the lack of the template, if that were the only issue, I'd just say to start adding them.  The real problem is indeed, the complicated nature of this proposal.  It's just asking for trouble.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep all and speedy close - the two categories contain close to 200 articles. There is no rational way to come to consensus on 200 different articles in a single AFD. If the nominator has specific concerns about specific lists, it can be discussed on the talk pages of those particular lists or in a more tightly focused AFD. Otto4711 16:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close-Mass nominations like this are a bad idea. AfD isn't really the place to get community consensus on the existence of a given type of article. Maybe take it to the village pump?--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close It is impossible to make a rational decision on this mass nomination. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a matter involving an actual policy change in what sort of categories should be made, and is not suitable for AfD. The obvious way to start is to delete the unmaintained ones and see what's left. DGG 22:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep all and speedy close. Absolutely agree with the above comments. I have sympathy with the principle behind the nomination, but AfD is far too blunt an instrument to deal with a big decision like this. AndyJones 17:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; Agree with above. I hate to say this because I respect the nominators' contributions, but to give delete as a preference here would seem to me utterly cynical. &mdash; 17:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/List of Brazil-related topics for precedent. –Pomte 07:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not really a similar situation. I do not think any of us voting above would object to individual lists being nominated separately at AfD. AndyJones 13:09, 6 April 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.