Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surf breaks in Australia


 * 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 of the debate was delete all. The nominator raises the point of verification, albiet in a one hour post script. There was not a single reference in this collection, and despite editor's assurances that it "could be verified" it is not. In the event that someone wants to write an article that cites sources, let the redlinks be your guide. - brenneman  {L} 03:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Surf breaks in Australia and other "Surf breaks in X" articles
Delete. Unencyclopedic article, reads like the Yellow Pages, violates Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. See also earlier successful AfD at Articles for deletion/Surf breaks in Israel. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also added to this nomination are


 * 1) Surf breaks in Brazil
 * 2) Surf breaks in Chile
 * 3) Surf breaks in Costa Rica
 * 4) Surf breaks in Denmark
 * 5) Surf breaks in France
 * 6) Surf breaks in Germany
 * 7) Surf breaks in Indonesia
 * 8) Surf breaks in Ireland
 * 9) Surf breaks in Mexico
 * 10) Surf breaks in New Zealand
 * 11) Surf breaks in Portugal
 * 12) Surf breaks in Puerto Rico
 * 13) Surf breaks in South Africa
 * 14) Surf breaks in United Kingdom
 * All of these articles are basically a collection of surfing spots. I have not included a couple of others, which contain more information, and are not open and shut deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me add one more grounds to the nomination: all these articles completely fail WP:V and WP:NOR, and so does the List of surfing areas. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and comments in the previous AfD regarding this article. Yank  sox  01:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as potentially useful list. Capitalistroadster 02:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * McDonalds locations in New Jersey is also a useful list to one who craves a quarter-pounder (tm). Would vote keep if I created it? - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * McDonald's restaurants are pretty much all the same. Surfing breaks are different. Further, they could be verified by references in surfing magazines and other reliable third party sources. Capitalistroadster 07:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that's good then. The McDonalds restaurants have an objective criteria linking together a finite and countable way of compiling a list. This thing here, the only objective criteria connecting them is open water.Blnguyen | rant-line 23:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 02:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If we can have bus timetables we can have surf breaks. -- Librarianofages 02:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Bus timetables? Where?? >reaches for his Rouge mop< - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no bus timetables. I can be seen as a prime 'offender' in this regard, and even I argue against them e.g. Articles for deletion/Sydney bus route 380. That something else is kept that is dubious is not an argument for keeping this anyway. In any case, Delete on basis of unencyclopaedic information (this can go up and down the whole coastline, even just within Queensland would be lengthy). SM247 My Talk  02:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry I had meant lists of bus routes, this is quite similar.. I see no reason at all why this should be deleted, with organic expansion this could become a great article! -- Librarianofages 02:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * weak keep for australia & brazil, merge rest to List of surfing areas --Astrokey 44 02:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge all to List of surfing areas. I would have liked to have seen the surf breaks article for Paraguay that is listed in the template at the bottom, considering it's landlocked. Recury 02:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe that surfing in Paraguay is possible due to tidal waves on the amazon (or was that Brazil?). -- Librarianofages 03:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you can surf on something in Paraguay, but it still would have been funny. Recury 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete these lists will always be incomplete and subjective. Theoretically any old piece of coastline can be used.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Theoretically you could point out the surfing possibilities of any part of coastline. Is the fact that they aren't in depth scientific analyses a down side for you. And since when has "incomplete" ever been a deletion point. Ans e ll  13:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Inherent "incompleteness" or "uncompletability" is a possible criteria for deletion as it results in a random list of things without a proper criteria.Blnguyen | rant-line 23:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions.   -- r2b2 03:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm voting on content here, not premise. If they were beefed up a bit, they could serve a major-enough use.  Also the fact that they aren't preceded by "list of" tells me there could be some actual content written about the regions in general.  AdamBiswanger1 03:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That isn't a valid discussion point. Voting on content means you don't have a delete point, although you alluded to rename, but didn't "bold" it, so the closer may not know what you mean. There is no way a "delete" vote will ever improve the information, that will simply remove the current efforts meaning you have to start from nothing again. Ans e ll  13:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Either keep or merge into List of surfing areas. The list is not necessarily subjective or original research; many of the linked articles describe how the areas are famous for surfing. I do worry that breakdown into multiple articles was excessive, and that's probably why Israel was deleted. Melchoir 04:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk 04:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per basically everyone above. Simple lists and inaccurate to boot ( I'm sure that Boomers Beach, Victor Harbor should be Boomers Beach, Port Elliot ) --Peripitus (Talk) 05:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename and expand into "Surfing in XXXXX", if that page already exists for some countries, then merge. --Midnighttonight 07:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all per Capitalistroadster since the list is potentially useful. Yamaguchi先生 08:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge; and if kept, move. Verifiable, worthwhile information should be kept somewhere, either at "Surfing areas in. . .", or "Tourism in . . ." articles.  "Surf breaks in Australia" is a confusing, jargon title.  Dawn breaks in Australia as well.  Smerdis of Tlön 13:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This crap's worse than the aforementioned bus timetables. At least those are verifable. Like Blnguyen said earlier, these lists are highly subjective. And I don't care much for surfies. Black-Velvet  13:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of surfing magazines, find an article that says "people surf at x in y" and there you go. We both know no one will actually do that, but they could be verified. Recury 14:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So your bias against surfies directly influenced your decision, going against the NPOV wikipedia environment. That isn't what a discussion is about. Ans e ll  13:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. These are all important and the lists are quite new. They need time to develop. --JJay 20:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's important enough but what objective criteria is there for selection?? WP:LIST.Blnguyen | rant-line 23:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Any of the many 100s of books and articles on the subject. For example, google books could be a good starting point . --JJay 23:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there any agreed criteria for being a "good/notable surf-spot" - or would this end up like a list of "good footballers" with many pundits having different lists of who the "top ten footballers" are??Blnguyen | rant-line 00:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For every country, the best surf breaks are a combination of common knowledge/shared wisdom among participants in the sport. That is going to be reflected in the references (i.e. surfing guides, etc.) and seems to be reflected in the lists at present. For example, the France list now lists three surf breaks, Denmark two. It is a relatively simple matter to set some simple standards and require a decent reference for list inclusion, preferably with a short description. --JJay 00:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless you can come up with a numerical formula people will always argue. Any listing of "Top Ten footballers/cricketers, etc..." will have different names depending on the critic, regardless of the "common knowledge/shared wisdom" amongst the pundits. Blnguyen | rant-line 00:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all sure what you are implying by "numerical formula". I do note that WP:List, the list guideline page, makes no mention of any requirement for math or equations. These lists do not seem to be top-ten lists or rankings, so I fail to see any similarity with a top-ten list of footballers. That would be a completely different subject and approach. The lists should have set inclusion criteria supported by references (i.e. the pundits who write books and guides to surf breaks). Having said that, argument/discussion often leads to good articles. That is partly the purpose of the article talk pages. --JJay 01:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As theoretically any piece of open water can be used for surfing, you'll need a criteria for including "notable surf-breaks" otherwise the list will be infinite and uncompletable - how can you rank them in an objective manner?Blnguyen | rant-line 01:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly, your statement that any "piece of open water can be used for surfing" is completely false. Following that logic, any open field could be used for golfing. Or any inclined surface with snow could be used for skiing. Yet, we have guides to ski slopes and golf courses that do not include every grassy area, or every hill and trail. Secondly, as I said before, these articles at present are not rankings. They are lists of well-known surf breaks. How do we know they are well known? Because they are included and discussed in guides from leading publishers and I have already provided links to some of these reference works. As with any article, "objectivity" derives from the validity of the references used. Inclusion criteria is a matter to be hashed out among the list editors on the talk pages. Finally, neither "infinite" nor "completable" are valid objections. At present the lists are quite short and far from "infinite". Like ski slopes and golf courses, major surf breaks are not infinite. Regarding "completable", the lists are just as completable as any other article here (none of which is ever really complete). If the topic was not completable, or infinite, as you have implied, it would be impossible to write cogent magazine articles or guides to surf breaks. Yet those works are written and published. They are not prefaced with warning notices as to their incompleteness and the surf breaks discussed are not chosen at random. They reflect where surfers congregate to surf- just like our lists (whose main shortcomings, as far as I am concerned, are the lack of refs at present). --JJay 01:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete All Importance could not be established since it was all original research. Per Jimbo, "...what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV..." Ste4k 01:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to Surfing in Australia etc etc etc and expand accordingly. It would be useful to have articles on the sport in particular countries, but simple lists of the top beaches is a bit pointless. BTW, Ste4k, these are not OR, since much of the information in them is from articles in Wikipedia on the places listed. Grutness...wha?  04:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge all to List of surfing areas, per Recury. BrownHornet21 05:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename and expand per Grutness. These articles are verifiable, and not original research. Give them time to develop. -- Avenue 03:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Detailing locations of surf breaks is notable within the surfing field. There is as much science to surfing as any sport represented on wikipedia. Possibly rename to general Surfing in X country articles and expand but the content is not "an indiscriminate collection of material". And if this succeeds someone should put up a deletion review for the Israel deletion. Ans e ll  13:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - No it isn't - there is no objective criteria for this and in no way does it compare to say List of Formula One venues or List of Test Cricket venues, for which there are obvious criteria for a stadia/circuit which has hosted an official event. There is nothing about sports science here; an article about some surfing technique would not be nominated for deletion, just like a cricket technique article like Doosra. Blnguyen | rant-line 23:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all - these lists are, crucially, unsourced. For a list to have value there should be added value over a category and there is no such added value here. BlueValour 15:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge all into List of surfing areas which doesn't look too large. One advantage that lists have over categories is that they can include nonexisting articles. -- Zigger  &laquo;&ordm;&raquo; 16:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all as per Blynguyen. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per above. Eusebeus 21:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all--Peta 00:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per the above. Dr Zak 01:04, 6 July 2006 (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.