Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environmental organizations

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 keep and (I hope) cleanup. Non-admin closure. Shalom ^Hello 14:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of environmental organizations

Redundant and becoming unwieldy. Category system suffices. Alan Liefting 21:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft. --Nonstopdrivel 00:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary envirogreeniecruft. Eddie.willers 01:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Envirogreenie," yup, that's me. Well, Delete anyway per nom. This looks like a nigh-impossible list to keep authoritative. Doesn't belong in WP. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Y'all changed my mind. -- Rob C (Alarob) 14:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not because I have a problem with the idea, but because the category system does a much better job of keeping a register of the environmental organisations on Wikipedia. Cedars 02:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list shows the use of several different methods of organisation, which is very hard to do with categories. A good list. Calling it unwieldy implies there's a good deal of stuff here, and there is. No list will be complete, but it can be more complete than a category. In practice , listcruft seems to mean any list that someone wants to delete, and saying this is not an arguement. DGG 07:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There a lot of redlinks in this list, which cannot be represented by categories and will not be mentioned on Wikipedia at all if this article is deleted. For example, the organisations listed for the Netherlands and Spain are all redlinks. The hierachy of organisations shown in the list is also very useful IMHO, especially to a casual Wikipedia reader who doesn't want to/can't wade through the categories. The article does need a lot of work though. Bláthnaid 20:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a redlink exists then and article can be started (iff approp) and then plced in a category. There are sufficient categories to cover all the subheadings in the page:

Reply Yes, the missing articles should be started and categorized. I started one myself, but I did not know that Wikipedia was lacking the article until I looked at this list. As well as being useful for highlighting Wikipedia's gaps, the list with its short commentary in each section explains the different types of organization that exist more explicitly than the categories. When a subsection gets large and unwieldy pruning the links to maybe 3/4 of the most notable organisations and using a "see also" link to the relevant category for the rest makes the list and the categories complementary rather than mutually exclusive. Bláthnaid 12:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than relying on the redlinks on a page it is better to use the search function to see if an article exists. The redlink may have incorrect capitalisation or some other way of misspelling in relation to an article the may already exists on the topic. Alan Liefting 22:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The contention that this list is redundant is without support. Such a list as this is overdue, and will be a service to the readership. ––Skyemoor 01:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can see nothing different between this list and many others which are used primarily to keep track of redlinks and to organise things in one easy-to-view way that would require jumping between different categories otherwise. May even prove an incentive to turning some of those links blue. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has useful information in it. some of the red links should be turned into blue links. Oysterguitarist~Talk 03:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful list. Could be split into different lists, but that doesnt require deletion. John Vandenberg 09:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very important list despite the length of the list. --JForget 17:31, 23 June 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.