Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost Towns Western Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete, as redundant to the category, without the sourcing. Sr13 00:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost Towns Western Australia

Ghost Towns Western Australia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Content is straight copy-paste from existing town articles (without wikimarkup). Subject is better dealt with through a new Category:Ghost towns in Western Australia (subcat of Category:Ghost towns in Australia)

Creator made a total of six WP edits in January and has not returned. —Moondyne 14:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - the deletion is supported and the proposal for the new category is excellent. SatuSuro 15:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- —Moondyne 15:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant to the category. For what it's worth I'd not have supported the creation of the subcat, there really aren't enough articles in this category to warrant it and would ahve been better served by the parent category. Arkyan • (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I can foresee another dozen or so articles eventually going into the subcat, but I do take your point and would not oppose a speedy merge back into the parent cat if there is consensus here to do so. —Moondyne 16:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:SYNTH the article, though I can think of a dozen towns off hand that would go into that subcategory. Gnangarra 16:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete While I think an interesting, informative and encyclopaedic article could be made on this topic that would not be redundant to the category, this article is none of those things. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 22:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. John Vandenberg 00:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. While there could be a good article on this, it is merely a cut and paste of the articles on the towns minus the sourcing. Capitalistroadster 02:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Should be the category instead to ensure minimum redundancy - the cut'n'pasted articles are already four months out of date. Orderinchaos 12:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and create category per nom. JRG 23:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment category should only be created if there are reliable references that the towns mentioned fit somebody's definition of a ghost town.Garrie 03:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, much better grouped using a category. Lankiveil 23:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep for the present - I commonly oppose the retention of lists where a category would be better. However this is a case where a case where a list is useful, because a list can have red links showing where an article is needed. The first few items in this list have substantive text and articles of their own, but the last few do not. I would suggest converting this to List of West Australian Ghost Towns, and deleting the material that appears in separate articles on specific towns. Peterkingiron 22:29, 26 May 2007 (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.