Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Superfund sites by state

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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 16:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Superfund sites by state

Contested prod. At the moment, this is a (virtually) empty list with all but two states blank, and — assuming the two "completed" states are anything to go by — will grow into a ridiculously long indiscriminate list of information (the header paragraph mentions 1240 entries) consisting almost entirely of redlinks. This list duplicates the list on the website referenced, so is not even going to be of any particular use, whilst the text is a content fork from Superfund. I think it's better to delete this now if it's going to be (or decide to keep if it's going to be kept), rather than anyone waste their time typing out all 1240 - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Remi0o has deleted the AfD warning from this page - I've now restored it and given a {{uw-afd1}} warning as xe doesn't seem to have a history of vandalism - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please note that the article in question has changed substantially since it was first marked as an afd. Examining the article in its current form in addition to its talk page may allow one to make a more informed judgment. --R e m i 18:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Superfund, which is not too long. Wikipedia is not a directory of all environmental cleanups. While one can see the principle in maintaining such a citizen watchdog directory, as it were, in practice only a few cleanup sites are notable, so most of the entries would be redlinks. They can be as un-notable as a leaky tank at an old gas station. --Dhartung | Talk 23:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - although the list's not too long now, the reason I've nominated it for deletion rather than just merging & redirecting is that (judging by the first few states) the creator clearly does intend to add all 1200+ to the list, redlinks or not. Incidentally, I'm not absolutely convinced that "Intel Corp, California" should actually be a redlink - iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You are welcome to change it so that the article is more to your liking. I am going to go ahead and divide it up by state and start a project to make all the red links blue ones. You are more than welcome to help. --Re m i 23:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rework as separate articles for each state, which is what I think the ed. above intendsDGG 05:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory WP:DIR. There is no point in simply creating lists which consist merely of public information which is already available in one place in the same format - here.Madmedea 13:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's truly possible to make all the red links into articles, turn this into a category. Someguy1221 22:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you search for lists, you will find hundreds, if not thousands. If this is deleted then perhaps all should be deleted. If you deem some as "directories" and not others then this seems inconsistent. How is a useful list differentiated from a directory? Perhaps Wikipedia can be a more easily accessible forum than the US government site. --R e m i 05:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopedic value. A list of 1240 entries is perhaps ok, perhaps long enough that it should be broken down e.g. by region or state (as the author is doing). There is no reason why entries should be blue links. They can be organized e.g. by county, and counties will be blue. Fg2 10:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia:List_guideline - The article seems to meet all three criteria. --R e m i 17:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic value. Plus, there is no reason why very many of the entries would need to be bluelinks - that is one of the strengths of a list versus a category. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:44, 28 April 2007 (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.