Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities impacted by current sea level rise

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities impacted by current sea level rise[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as arbitrary list; all cities at sea level on the world ocean with a beach or port should be here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article of little value whose scope is extremely large (all seaside cities) and whose fundamental concern (the impact of sea rise) is better dealt in the already existing article Future sea level. —Lappspira (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I see the potential vast scope as a reason to keep and improve, rather than delete. If there are reliable sources on the subject, not just newspaper articles, then it is in itself a notable subject. The article on Future sea level is not supposed to have extensive lists in it. Dimadick (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not because it isn't a notable topic. I hope that every city and town in the world near the ocean is at least making plans to do something about rising sea levels. But as for a WP list of them, well you might as well have a list of cities that being impacted by crime, earthquakes, fires, air pollution, etc... The list really serves no purpose. Borock (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is, clearly, incomplete. And it does not actually focus on Future sea level, it focuses on CURRENT issues. That said, if concerned editors arrive at a reasonable cutoff, I think it appropriate, as Sea level rise ( the topic of the article) and future sea level really do not contain anything close to a comprehensive list, nor would a "listy" section be appropriate for these articles. This article has a clear criteria for inclusion (cities currently affected and those having a plan to deal with it) and per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, it is a valid topic that will, no doubt, expand. A possible rename or some expansion would be in order. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Change the title. First, the current title is confusing. I don't know what is meant by "current sea level rise". If it means something different from "current sea level", then it must refer either to "past sea level rise" or "future sea level rise". Secondly, the text gives a different definition to the list: "Cities on this list have either implemented measures, or are discussing measures to deal with rising sea levels and associated storm surges, according to reliable sources." This, at least, narrows the subject down from a list of every coastal city to something manageable and verifiable. I believe that the article should be retitled: "Cities planning for sea level rise" or something similar. Plazak (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It still would be an arbitrary list, as (in most cases) it is impossible to tell whether the city is preparing for future sea level rise, past sea level rise (or land fall; see New Orleans, although not on the list the last time I checked), or merely has the funds to deal with current sea level problems, whether or not due to a change in sea level ( ~~sea~~ see Holland). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article already conflates past, projected, and possible sea level rises and as can be seen elsewhere in WP, many enthusiasts in this field exhibit confusion about tenses. Already in this short article 'current' applied to sea level rise is used meaning in one case 'past' and in another 'future projected'. Even with a suggested name change as above, how does one reliably tell that a new sea defence is being planned because of projected sea level rise and not simply because of projected or actual increase in storm surges; or just because the city can now afford it? Too messy. Gravuritas (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom and above editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:27, 27 August 2015 (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.