Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Guam rivers

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 kept No consensus Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Guam rivers

WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No notability given for the list, stated or implied. Tychocat 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because for the above reasons:

List of rivers in U.S. insular areas

List of canals in the United States

List of islands in Massachusetts

I'm adding List of hospitals in Massachusetts, since it is tagged and links to this discussion, but I'm not proposing its deletion. Afonso Silva 11:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Contributor appears to like making lists. There are others, but I figure these will do for test cases, and I frankly fatigued out with the process. Tychocat 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I find geographic lists useful as a cross-reference. A list of PokeMon characters or Simpsons jokes? Those, I'd delete. -- Mikeblas 02:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete list of islands in Mass - Or at least trim it to a smaller set of them. It looks like every rock found in a puddle of water is listed there. Most of them seem to be barren and uninhabited. The rest all seem legitimate and useful enough to me. Wickethewok 03:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. These are useful lists well worth keeping. For mine, lists of significant geographical features are generally notable. Capitalistroadster 03:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. These lists exist for many features of many countries. They are a useful method of listing the features and subdividing them/further describing them in ways which categories cannot. They are also extremely useful since in many cases there will be numerous redlinks which - of course - cannot be categorised. Grutness...wha? 03:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful lists that can help readers navigate through articles on related rivers--TBCTaLk?!? 04:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete the list of islands in Massachusetts, the list of rivers in U.S. insular areas, and the list of Guam rivers, fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The Guam river article is also redundant to the list of rivers article. Keep the list of canals. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Guam rivers, as its redundant, and the Massachussetts islands for reasons above. Keep the canals. Abstain on the insular rivers. GassyGuy 04:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Per below discussion with Sjakkalle: Keep the list of rivers in insular areas and redirect Guam rivers to that article.
• Delete and categorise and the same with the others. Viridae^Talk 05:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I am not all that happy with the list as it is since it is a bunch of unannotated redlinks, but since we don't have any articles on any of these rivers, it is not redundant with a category (since we don't have the category). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • (Also I want to affirm my wish to keep List of islands in Massachusetts as well. at the moment it looks like a reasonable work in progress to produce a table over terrain and population which makes the list useful on its own.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No, but it replicates information on List of rivers in U.S. insular areas. GassyGuy 06:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • If you delete List of rivers in U.S. insular areas, it sure won't be duplicated... If that is a problem I think it best to keep List of rivers in U.S. insular areas and merge/redirect List of Guam rivers with that article. Deleting these will cost us valid information until we get enough articles to make a meaningful and useful category. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Please note that I didn't express an opinion to delete the insular ones. I was just pointing out what it duplicated. GassyGuy 07:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks for pointing it out. I agree with you that List of Guam rivers is a duplicate, albeit one which would be a useful redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I see three pages listed at the top, in addition to Guam rivers. How is it that I got here from List of hospitals in Massachusetts when it does not appear anywhere on this page? That's the article I'm really here voting to keep; in addition to Mass. islands now that I see it up there.
• Comment. There is no real connection between any of the articles nominated other than that they are all lists. The nominations for each should be separate as the debate will be rather disorganised causing possible difficulties for the admins. Capitalistroadster 09:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The five lists list things that are certainly finite. Obviously, there is not an infinite number of rivers in Guam nor an infinite number of islands in Massachusetts, so, the lists are useful and can be expanded with further info. Afonso Silva 11:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Geographic lists are useful. Kirjtc2 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All. I've used many such lists to help fill out missing articles on geographic features. When the article list is populated or stubbed out, then add a category and drop it. Kuru ^talk 14:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All I can't question the lists as being useful or finite to particular editors. I do question the basic notability and encyclopedic relevance of the articles, which I believe is to the point. These articles only exist as lists, since if you stubbed the individual rivers there'd be no reason to have the stubs at all. I have a toolbox that's been very useful to me (and has finite contents), but I don't see how that rates inclusion in WP. (sorry for the belated appearance, I wasn't aware that it was done for afd nominators to also vote on their afds.) Tychocat 15:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that there's nothing verifiable or notable about any of the redlinked items in any of the unreleated lists you've proposed for deletion? Or are you saying that there's not content to these lists orther than being lists? I'm afraid your toolbox example does not seem to be very clear; your garage toolbox has done little to help editors on wikipedia, and would continue to be useless if it were included here - are you saying that these lists are also not helpful to finding articles to create and helping editors? There would seem to be quite a bit more to some of these lists than just 'a list' as well; the List of canals in the United States is grouped by canal functionality and operating state and also has some notations included as well. Could you please exapnd on your point a little further? I'm trying to understand your position. Kuru ^talk 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'm also a little concerned that the discussion here is getting a little fragmented since each list would appear to have different problems; and with the exception of the insular/guam issue - they're all unrealted. Kuru ^talk 15:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm saying the articles listed for deletion only exist as lists. There's no notability stated or implied for any of the listed items, except as readers apparently have for them on a personal basis. I point out there's no reason at all to have articles on most of the individual items, they only have relevance as items on a list. And being on a list does not make them notable, nor are lists intrinsically notable. Tychocat 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I'm still not sure of your point here: 75% of the items in the List of canals in the United States already have articles which are more than established. I could probably create articles for the remainder that meet the notability standards for geographic locations fairly easily. The list complies with the guidelines at WP:LIST or WP:LISTS. There are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of geographical lists along similar lines. Again, what is your guideline for the notability of a list? All items must be notable? Most? Which guidelines are you using? Please don't think I'm being combative - that's not my intent, I'm simply trying to understand where you're coming from. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 16:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a reference work so I would hope to find info on rocks, islands, rivers. That is part of our role. The lists are very well ordered and highly discriinate, but could use better references. --JJay 00:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as per various other keep votes. --Merovingian {T C @} 00:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep but preferably Categorize. These seem useful enough, but should really be Categories. Bwithh 01:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. These lists are crucial parts of what makes Wikipedia useful. Lists are articles, and are not the same as categories. Fg2 01:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; this lists can be valuable and are above the usual listcruft. Peyna 02:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is beyond me how these can be seen as indiscriminate. In the case of the Guam list, I doubt that articles would be appropriate, but an enhanced list showing length, precise location etc certainly would be. Osomec 03:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep no reason to delete. An56 04:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with the added note that these type of nominations should be seperated. Yamaguchi先生 04:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree. This deal of multiple articles under a single nomination is bizarre. Especially since some articles pointing to this deletion page weren't even listed on this page initially. Sahasrahla 07:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Vegaswikian 00:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the list of canals. It isn't redundant with the category because not all of the canals have articles yet, and the list is useful to someone looking for a canal -- it at least acknowledges the existence of a canal. (As an aside, I came upon that article because I was seeing if we had an article on Duck Creek Aqueduct or Whitewater Canal.) Delete List of rivers in U.S. insular areas -- it's redundant with List of Guam rivers (which I vote to keep), List of Puerto Rico rivers (not up for deletion), and List of United States Virgin Islands rivers and streams (also not up for deletion). As far as List of islands in Massachusetts, I prefer to keep it, but the entries about "minor rocks" can probably go. I doubt we'll ever need an article about a minor rock. --Elkman 02:40, 5 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.