Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australia-New Zealand and Australasia topics

Add links
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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
List of Australia-New Zealand-related articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like way too broad a category to make a sensible List out of. And even if it is kept, it's pretty much useless in random order - it should at least be alphabetized. -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SALAT states:
This has now been done, so that matter is dealth with.DutchUvven (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC) — DutchUvven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC) (UTC)..[reply]

* Keep We've got List of African-American-related topics. Australians and NZers are no less consequential than them (we're literate, plus we've never been slaves). It's usefulness is as a 'seealso' link to the article Australia-New Zealand relations. What do you prefer: that the massive list be displayed within the content of the article, clearly dominating its size and focus? No? Then perhaps the list being an article of its own?? Oh but it's not yet sufficiently alphabetised! So do it, or help it, and waste no time in the closure of this nomination.Listii (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC) — Listii (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC) (UTC).. User subsequently blocked as sock.[reply]

Your argument rests on WP:OTHERSTUFF. We have categories. This sort of open list is of no real benefit. Polargeo (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See what I've said, and directly referencing policy, further below about the beneficiecy of redundancy in list and categories and the additional functionalities enjoyed by lists over categories.DutchUvven (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think List of African-American-related topics is a bit different, as "African-American-related topics" is more specific and is about a cultural/humanistic category. This list isn't about Australians and NZers, it's about everything related to that part of the word - including frogs, birds, plants, sport, politics, gynaecology (to pick a few at random). The equivalent would be List of American topics, which you can see doesn't exist. I also don't think it's a good "See also" for Australia – New Zealand relations, as most of its contents are nothing to do with "Australia – New Zealand relations" - I think that article would be better with a small list of closely-related links -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that the article lacks an ordering no longer can be sustained and now a number of other articles also link to it. Most definitely there are uncontroversial large country-and-region-related lists: eg. Index of United States–related articles, List of topics related to Africa. And if you can concede that Australasia (one of the continents) has more impact on the world than say, American cheeses, par example, you really should be going after List of American cheeses with the arguments you are running before you are going after this new list. All the listed articles certainly contribute subject matter to the topics of Australasia or Australia-New Zealand relations, mostly both. For example the existence of each species is evidence of the nature of the common ecosystem and animal inhabitation of the neighbouring countries and each publication or Association or sporting collaboration in the list is evidence of the depth of common approach and cross-national cooperation which is an important theme in the relations. Even a list which displays the sheer number of conjoint accreditation/professional and scientific bodies makes an important point, which is here being put in peril of being lost .. and certainly muted.
To say that you can have this massive long list about the continent of Africa but not a counterpart pertaining to Australasia is to display a want of logic. That both may stay or both must go is the proper position, and its a simple choice: one to be resolved in the former choice to my understanding and observation of similar cases.110.20.20.224 (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I hadn't seen those two (I did look for a USA list, but I was thrown off by it starting with "Index") - I quite agree that wanting to retain those but not the new one would be illogical, and that's not my position. I'm generally against very broad list categories, but if such a precedent has been set and has community approval, I'll have to reconsider and may withdraw this nomination - I'll have a bit of a think. -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just not maintainable there are categories for this. Arguments for keep rest on WP:OTHERSTUFF. It does not really matter that other AfDs have resulted in keep. The list goes far beyond anything of any use. We should just have a list of anything in the world and anything not in the world, where does it stop? List is of no practical use. Polargeo (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if it's 'not anything of use' where otherwise at one stop would you suggest a researcher to consult whose interest was the great many things that were relatable/related to both, or common to both, Australia and New Zealand?DutchUvven (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And once again I must point out that WP:SALAT doesn't say that broad listings are bad per se. It merely says that a broad listing is undesirable if it is not sectioned into subheadings. That's not the case here; fully there are -8- sectioned subheadings.DutchUvven (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral As nominator, I've now changed my take on this to neutral, because the whole list thing seems too complicated for me to be sure about. On the one hand, I personally don't think very broad-based lists are a good idea, because I just don't see people starting their searches at such an abstract level. But on the other, Index of United States–related articles actually does exist (along with some others), and the Community has apparently been satisfied with keeping it. So I think there probably isn't a policy, consensus, or precedent-based justification for deleting this list - but I leave it for others to discuss. (Note: The list has been broken down into sections and alphabetized now, so that part of my nomination statement is now invalid) -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you're out of the closet as neutral then this nomination should be withdrawn and the discussion forthwith closed with result Keep. People don't nominate and in the first place you wouldn't have nominated to 'be neutral': they nominate to take a stand and to get something done. Now also this notion that 'a category's just as good as (or better than) a list' also requires to be demolished, and I'll quote from WP:LISTPURP:
So we never say, 'kill that list; make it a category' we rather say 'let's have both, if possible' again because their "redundancy .. is beneficial because the two .. work together". If anything we acknowledge the list additional functionalaties described above which are missing as category functionalities. You said it yourself: "there probably isn't policy, consensus, or precedent-based justification for deleting this list". I think we're done here.DutchUvven (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't nominate to be neutral, I nominated because I thought it needed a discussion regarding possible deletion - had I thought it didn't need discussion, I would have gone for a WP:PROD instead. (And people don't always "nominate to take a stand and to get something done", they often nominate because they think a discussion is needed). I've made it clear I'm now unsure (not that I've decided I was originally wrong), and I think it still needs discussion in order to clarify whether it should stay or go. And while I said "there probably isn't a policy, consensus, or precedent-based justification for deleting this list", that doesn't mean a new consensus can't be formed, and this discussion may help in that direction. Thus I think further discussion would be valuable, and so I do not wish to withdraw. -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you must, then remedy that perception by retitling to 'List of Australasia-related articles' as concluding compromise. Also all the publications have either Australasia (or Australia and New Zealand) as the subject matter or recipient target audience hence their titling. Why for all this time we've been with without even an Australasia-related articles category is beyond me and a regrettable lacuna.DutchUvven (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is "Australasia"? That's the main problem. The category for Australasia was deleted per this discussion where "too broad" and "too vaguely defined" were key oppose reasons. A DRV two months later upheld that result for similar reasons. Nobody's ever been able to define what Australasia actually is - it's a term used in different contexts to mean different things. Orderinchaos 04:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then's that's avoided by change in titling to Australia-New Zealand as preferred term in place of Australasia. And we know that the latter certainly includes all of Australia and all of New Zealand. All of the 'Australasian' medical colleges and other professional bodies are in no doubt about that.DutchUvven (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still not a list of topics. It's a grab bag of information which happens to be about two countries. There has been past debates about whether even articles about bilateral relations between two countries (which definitely don't fit in the grab bag category) are encyclopaedic and indeed, many have been deleted. Orderinchaos 05:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is presently titled as a list of articles, not of "topics". You tag is a "grab bag of information (etc)"; its actually an -index-(or list) of -articles-, something well-precedented here: see Category:Indexes of articles. And also, as its scope is presently defined, its about much more than the bilateral relations of two countries: it's about Australia-New Zealand per se.CERprophet (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm genuinely curious why two newly-created accounts, one whose editing was limited to yesterday, a second whose editing has been limited to today, have such an interest in this matter. Is a sock check warranted? Orderinchaos 04:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it wouldn't and that would be an abuse. Nobody's in danger of having voted twice. Troll-smearing genuine contributors as 'sock' is only warranted by some avoidance of individual restictions (eg. limit on reversions, voting only once) is achieved.DutchUvven (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is assuming the primary account is indeed a "genuine contributor" - I'm not yet convinced of that. If for example all of these were block evading socks from a block which predated this AfD, then the vote (and I do accept that you've voted only once, although why you've chosen to comment under 3 different IDs is a good question as it gives at least the perception of misleading as to consensus - see the headnote on WP:SOCK) would be struck anyway, making all this a moot point. Orderinchaos 05:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- even if the name of the article is wrong (topics?, Australasia?), the lead paragraph needs work, and the flora and fauna should probably be dispensed with. The article is a list of Australia.AND.New Zealand articles (relating to both countries) where the two nations are considered as a single cultural/social etc entity (cf Benelux); on that basis it is not too broad, the article is close to completion, and it is not Australasia which is Australia.AND/OR.New Zealand.AND/OR.maybe-some-other-bits which is quite rightly deemed too vague to be a category or a list. A category could be created to mirror the article, though I cant yet think of a name which would reflect the content accurately, and be capable of retaining its integrity. Australia and New Zealand do form a coherent group, and have long done so, to the exclusion of others, and that which they share is well reflected in the article and is not to be readily found elsewhere(Crusoe8181 (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Rename to something like List of topics relating to both Australia and New Zealand, per Crusoe8181. I'm not sure that the case for including fauna is as clear as the cultural/historical linkages, but that can be sorted out on the list's talk page. -- Avenue (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's now renamed to List of Australia-New Zealand-related articles, with a portion hived off into List of Australasian ecology and wildlife-related articles. Interested to Keep, now?CERprophet (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming implies keeping. I don't care for the new title either; "Australia-New Zealand-related" is ugly and unclear. Shifting from "topics" to "articles" also suggests that this list will not include redlinks, and so offers little that categories could not provide instead. --Avenue (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be difficult to convince you that Australia-New Zealand is a subject of study or interest since you've decided not to find a 'good reason': for the rest of us with any doubt re that I'd simply say - look at the bread and number of articles listed there and referencing the subject (or concept). Then tell us its not a real subject or that there's 'no good reason' to raise a list that aids the curious to easily survey the scope of it. And, as it stands, what otherwise is accomplishing what it is/does??
Plus you misapprehend that there's some live issue arising from the application of the policy you're quoting to the actual circumstances. This bare -index- of -articles- comes nowhere near to a capability of being definable as any of the listed seven things derogated there (manual, guide, research paper, textbook, case study, etc). The connection's wanting.CERprophet (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a list of random articles not topics, it so significantly incomplete that it almost incomprehensible as to its intended purpose. There is nothing retrievable from the lists content, that to adjust the List to the scope of the title it would be necessary to blank the page and start fresh. Add to that the title itself has redundant terminology because Australasia though poorly and differently defined depending on the context still generally encompasses Australia-New Zealand the list would need to be moved to List of Australiasia related topics . Gnangarra 09:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of articles are permitted; what's your problem? Go read the lead para again and now come back and tell me here what in it proves incomprehensible to you. Which word(s)? Which phrase(s)? Finally, the word "Australasia" that you find redundant is now gone from the title. I suggest you don't rush to delete the article. Rather go in there and delete only the particular entries that you don't find relatable to any part of its defining scope. Are there any?CERprophet (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:CIVIL. Saying "what's your problem?" is far from polite, and the tone of the rest of your comment is not much better. We are all volunteers here, and ordering people around can be counterproductive. -- Avenue (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. & tagging other peoples' intellectual product "incomprehensible" never insults or comes over arrogant either.CERprophet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Play the ball, not the man. -- Avenue (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that my initial comment was on the ball of defending the merits of the article whereas your rejoinder to it was to avoid that ball and exclusively to take a chip at me as another editor. If you decide to take another chip then expect me to be replying to it again, Your Highness.CERprophet (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note this list was originally listed as List of Australia-New Zealand and Australasia topics the definition was that of topic relating to the subject, it has since been moved and the scope redefined as articles but that is already covered by other lists so my position of deletion is unchanged. Gnangarra 09:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, problems with indiscriminate nature of what to include in the list page. Also, there are troubling issues of possible socking going on in this AFD. -- Cirt (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So we know what Australia is, and there's not some 'indiscriminacy' problem having Index of Australia-related articles. We also know what New Zealand is, and neither is there an 'indiscriminacy' with the concept of List of New Zealand–related topics. Knowing then that Australia-New Zealand is the conjoined union of the two things we already know, then how only at that stage does this 'indiscriminacy' issue occur in raising the analagous list titled List of Australia-New Zealand-related articles? Help us understand that.CERprophet (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't apply. User:Crusoe8181 is also a contributor to the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
(Noting the above is by a sock of Tasbian also) Note the word "significant". Orderinchaos 10:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep If date of establishment is what you're getting at, that's no relevance to WP:DELETE if you read it. Articles of longevity can be nominated for, and be, deleted. It does fit into two categories, even when you remove the other two that you object to. Also I think it does have a clear scope that is defined in its lead. With every article in the list I can see why they are in it with reference to it.110.20.25.202 (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC) — 110.20.25.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Gnangarra 09:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The significant contributions are by all of yourself, Crusoe8181, Vanjile, and some others. They are by no means all one person or all under some sort of sanction.
1. Vanjile is your sock. 2. There are no significant edits from me - they fall into the maintenance category. Orderinchaos 05:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appropriate navigational device. Lists are appropriate as well as categories, and this is specifically a list of articles whose importance overlaps the individual country lists of topics. . I see no reason why previous sockpuppetting or even blocking unrelated to this topic would necessarily affect the article, and we can use our judgement to retain this good list. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I can understand the nomination of this list and the views of those who want to delete it, I bizarrely find myself agreeing with the socks. I don't consider the scope of this list, as apparently amended as this AfD has progressed, is too broad to make the list unsuitable for inclusion. The list in its current state isn't perfect. There may be editorial disagreements as to whether particular articles belong on the list. But I don't think either of those reasons justify deletion. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Australia-New_Zealand_and_Australasia_topics&oldid=1078429049"