Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Map 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   redirect to U.S. state. Redirect will maintian useful title, and link to existing version inside a well-used en.Wikipedia article (non-admin closure) ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 13:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Map of the United States

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

not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not for interactive maps with no articles attached.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You will need to source that before you can claim such a thing.--cooljuno411 04:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * there aren't any policies pertaining to this particular sort of thing, per WP:BEANS. However this is obviously not encyclopedia content.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well according to definition of "encyclopedia" ("reference work", "comprehensive written compendium that contains information", etc), yes, this would fit. So i oppose deleting. No harm of the article. And it sure has helped me find information.--cooljuno411 07:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I typed in "map of the united states" and got this page, which provided exactly what I was looking for.  The fact that I was able to find such information so easily is reason enough for me to vote to keep.  The purpose of this site is to provide useful information quickly to people, right?  --Quintin3265 (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. the purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia.  Even if this articles conveys information in a helpful way, it is not an encyclopedia entry.  It is an education tool, and does not belong on wikipedia.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This page is really very useful and clever. However it is not an encyclopedia article, as others have said.  Could a place be made for it and other "map index pages"? Borock (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Make that Keep, as a useful accessory to WP's encyclopedia function. Borock (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This map also exists at U.S. state. I suggest redirecting this to that section. Deor (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Redirect to U.S. state - Rather strange if you think of it as an article, but quite useful if you think of it as a visual disambiguation page for the states of the United States. This is surely a plausible search term.  I have marked the article as a dabpage.  So I recommend keeping this unless someone can show me policy that prohibits it.  LinguistAtLarge &bull; Msg  17:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you mean a stand-alone list, not a dab page. This isn't disambiguating any terms. Deor (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds more logical. Actually, your idea of a redirect is even better.  LinguistAtLarge &bull; Msg  17:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to U.S. state as per User:Deor's suggestion Mangoe (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support redirect Would have suggested merging into that article if the map was not already present there. Stand-alone is not an encyclopedia article, but the map itself definately adds to the encyclopedia in general and is a valuable navigation tool for this encyclopedia.  The   Seeker 4   Talk  18:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Many established print encyclopedias have stand alone atlas sections, so the nominator's arguments don't really hold much water. That said, I could live with a redirect to U.S. state. Zagalejo^^^ 20:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While the map itself is certainly useful, transcluding it and nothing else into a standalone article at the title "Map of the United States" is not. Redirect the title to U.S. state; since the map is already transcluded into that article as a template, it's not as though redirecting would cause us to lose the map's function. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment In traditional paper encyclopedias, an atlas has normally been included. On the basis that we have everythingthat other encyclopedias do, we could even justify this as a stand alone article.DGG (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see the value of an atlas feature, but this ad hoc method isn't the way to go about it. It would seem to me, for instance, to better to have something like Atlas:United States. In any case, It needs to be presented as a formal proposal and discussed. Mangoe (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are a couple of previous proposals: one, two  LinguistAtLarge &bull; Msg  22:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Traditional paper encyclopedias have space and organizational limitations that we don't have — namely, it's somewhere between spectacularly difficult and completely impossible for a paper encyclopedia to integrate maps directly into the articles themselves in the way that Wikipedia can quite easily. So a paper encyclopedia segregates its maps to a separate section, but we don't need to do that here, because we've already placed maps directly into the articles themselves. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment is there a WikiAtlas to transwiki this to? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Very excellent article, I myself have used this for reference; it exists in many interwikis. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect or merge somewhere While definitely useful, it doesn't really fit in well under current policies. Jtrainor (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to U.S. state. It certainly is not necessary to maintain a separate article containing solely what is already contained within another article—but it baffles me that someone would describe a map of the U.S. as "obviously not encyclopedia content", when such maps have probably appeared in every printed general encyclopedia published in the last two centuries! DHowell (talk) 01:57, 13 February 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.