Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communications in Kazakhstan

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communications in Kazakhstan

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information.TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 00:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. To call these facts indiscriminate seems like nationalistic bias not allowed by WP:NPOV. The information should remain on Wikipedia on one page or another, maybe in the Kazakhstan page, maybe on this page. But it is not indiscriminate. SliceNYC 00:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - there's an entire category Category:Communications by country for these article. -- Whpq 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect — To Kazakhstan. SynergeticMaggot 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, part of a series. Gazpacho 02:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Gazpacho. Dinosaur puppy 03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Wryspy 04:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Someone could merge this into Kazakhstan. Daniel's page ☎ 06:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Kazakhstan. By itself, a "communications" article is a fine subject for an article, and an individual article is great if we can get plenty of content on it, but this article amounts to a table of information. While encyclopedic, such an item is more useful in the context of a main article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Kazakhstan. NCurse _work 08:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I merged it. Kazakhstan#Communications_in_Kazakhstan... NCurse _work 08:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have taken it out again as lists of facts look ugly in main articles. Piccadilly 10:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment this information isn't quite indiscriminate, it's almost certainly a copy and paste from the CIA World Factbook as IIRC it mirrors exactly the format used there. MLA 09:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong keep, improve and do not merge. Every country has such an article. They were all created by a bot and many have been vastly improved since they were started. That this one hasn't been improved yet is merely a manifestation of systemic bias, but we should keep waiting. Calling this indiscriminate is utter nonsense. Piccadilly 10:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and rewrite as noted by MLA, this information is a direct copy-paste job from the CIA world factbook in 2001, and as such the information, as well as being copied verbatim, is hugely out of date (3 years is quite a long time in communications infrastructure life). It needs updating, rewriting and merging. 81.159.65.145 10:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Martinp23 10:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) no signed in
• Keep ...because of the "by country" category reference. I'm more concerned about the utility of Category:Communications in Kazakhstan. StuffOfInterest 13:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Piccadilly. Each country has or ought to have such an article. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep because of its current terrible state. However, this is redeemable. (|-- UlTiMuS ^{( U • T • C | M • E )} 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Hmmm On the one hand, this information would mean a lot more if it were on the same pages with other countries, for comparison's sake. On the other hand, merging all of the countries onto one page would make a huge, huge page that is difficult to navigate. Let's not kill off good information, but is there maybe a better way to display it? Jacqui^★ 21:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as part of a series. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 21:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as part of a series. Either way, it is not necessary to discuss merges in this forum. Yamaguchi先生 08:06, 17 August 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.