Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public holidays in the Solomon Islands

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Public holidays in the Solomon Islands

Most useless list of all time—Wahoofive (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, part of a series. Gazpacho 00:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Is this a serious nomination? I find it incredible that someone interested in creating an encyclopedia would think it could possibly be better without information about national public holidays. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• I think a merge would be sufficient, but since it's part of a series, I'll go ahead and vote keep. And let's not assume bad faith about the nominator! --Idont Havaname 01:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, apologies for any inadvertent imputation of bad faith. But I still cannot see how this article got to be listed. It defies logic. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - is this part of WikiProject Increasing Systemic Bias? I think Tony had it right the first time. Guettarda 01:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete substub, not even a sentence. -83.129.10.164 01:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The seventh edit by 83.129.10.164 (talk • contribs), all edits made today. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Ever heard of a think called dynamic IP User:Guety, commons:User:Guety and de:Benutzer:Guety aka -83.129.10.164 01:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Solomon Islands only one holiday in the list --Aranda56 01:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Solomon Islands. I presume that the nominator felt that a list page with only a single item in the list is of, er, limited value. i tend to agree. If the list fills out while merged, it could perhaps be split off again. DES ^(talk) 01:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry, I just added a dozen more public holidays. Sorry. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • No need to apologize for adding worthwhile content which your additions are. And no need to be snide if that was your intent. After the additions, IMO there is no plausible reason to delete. i still think the info would be better if mereged into Solomon Islands -- users would IMO be more likely to find it there. DES ^(talk) 01:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I apologise for my unproductive snarkiness. AfD could do with a lot less of that and I'm sorry to have contributed to it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
      • If they look for it there, they would still find it on a separate page long as there's a link. Kappa 03:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good save, Tony. Chick Bowen 01:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - as above. - Hahnchen 02:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Solomon Islands. Denni☯ 02:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as part of category:Public holidays by country Kappa 03:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• K easy one. Fawcett5 04:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. As per Denni. – AxSkov (☏) 05:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Articles which are part of a global series should never be merged - it ruins the effectiveness of the category system. CalJW 09:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Consistent with treatment of public holidays in other countries. Contrary to the nominator, I'm sure its useful to Solomon Islanders. Capitalistroadster 09:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • At nomination time there was exactly one entry on this list, not useful to anyone on the planet. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Many other nations have seperate articles detailing public holidays. As above, to delete this article is reflective of systemic bias.--Nicodemus75 10:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No good reason why the Solomon Islands should be singled out. Qwghlm 12:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, then delete. Are you serious, guys? You're wasting time, protests and effort for what? Holiday trivia? No one would actually search for these kinds of articles unless we told them to. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you explain why you are suggesting that we do an (irreversible) history merge? Is there some reason why think that this page, post-merge, should not be in Wikipedia at all? Guettarda 18:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "No one would actually search for these kinds of articles unless we told them to"--if this were an appropriate criteria half of Wiki could be deleted. Marskell 16:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No, I mean this literally. It's not just highly unlikely that anyone would search for this (like searches for subtlety or Hans Basbøll), but downright bizarre. No person expects to find themselves in a separate article called "public holidays in the Solomon Islands". People will search for "Solomon Islands" and expect to find it there. The only exception are Wikipedia editors with too much experience of AfD... / Peter ^Isotalo 17:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
    • They can find it in Solomon Islands and then click on the link, but 99% of the people looking at Solomon Islands won't want this information cluttering up the page. Kappa 17:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Clicking a link just to get a sub-stub that easily fits in the main article is a waste of time both to the average reader as well as the editor who has to keep an eye on the article. A lose/lose situation with only inclusionist dogma to keep it afloat. / Peter ^Isotalo 18:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
        • This isn't about inclusionism, since the information is preserved whether merged or not. The "average reader" of Solomon Islands saves time by not having to download and then skip over irrelevant detail. Kappa
• Keep, it's been expanded to contain a significant amount of info, which in my opinion is enough for a seperate article just like all the other articles in Category:Public holidays by country. Merging would only clutter up the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep per Mgm, merging would clutter up main article. Sabine's Sunbird 23:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC) Keep For most people this would be clutter in the Solomon Islands article and there are several logical entry points for this one. Idea should be extended to other lists of public olidays in various countries. Caerwine 06:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful list. Part of a series. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and don't really understand the arguments not to.Vizjim 10:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it would be nice for some background on the items rather than just a base list, but it can grow --redstucco 10:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ··gracefool |☺ 07:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Each nation has a similar list on WP. PRueda29 02:54, 25 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.