Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of islands of the United States

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 keep. Singularity 01:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of islands of the United States[edit]

List of islands of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article is redundant. A category exists that serves the purpose of this article -- to list US islands -- and a majority of the links on this list are essentially dead. crtrue 05:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment One of the purposes of a list such as this is to show which items still need an article. Red links can be very useful to writers. Nick mallory 06:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Nick mallory. bfigura (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Nick mallory. I got a great help from a list close to this. --Hirohisat Talk 06:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. List guidelines suggest that being a holding place for redlinks is one purpose of a list since categories cannot do that. This is a finite list (there is a USGS definition of island) and thus maintainable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's huge but a useful resource nonetheless and, as per above, cat pages can't do all the work Dick G 06:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was going to vote delete, but dhartung convinced me otherwiseBalloonman 06:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't need lists just to hold red links. There are other venues for such things. -Icewedge 07:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What other venues? Not all islands have articles, and the category for islands will of course only list islands with articles. Per WP:OUTCOMES, islands and other geographical locations tend to be per se notable for inclusion. Wl219 08:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - even though there are red links doesn't necessarily mean to pull the plug. Onnaghar tl | co | @ 11:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article does a good job of organizing information that is of common interest, and is easily maintainable. The fact that there are red links is simply a justification as to why the list is not superceeded by the category: The list includes information that is of value, but does not have it's own article, and thus is not listed in a category. Calgary 13:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per reasoning W1219. Karbinski 15:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per t he reasoning given above. I dislike lists that are primarily populated with redlinks - many of which can never exist as an article above substub level - nevertheless, just because I don't like it means it should be deleted. As far as the size is concerned, the list can be broken down into smaller lists, perhaps individually by states, but that is an editorial matter and not one for AfD. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the list seems to have good coverage, and editors with information about the islands can quickly find which ones need coverage because of the red links. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 16:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the fact that most of these are red-links shows why a Category is not enough, by definition. Mandsford 17:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lists are useful. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 20:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - to vote to keep as a respository of redlists is to assume the notability of each island in the US; I don't seem able to convince myself of such a notion. I suspect that 99.9% of the islands have nothing of value to offer in an article and thus to keep the article is to vote to keep a list of nonnotable, redlisted, items that serve no purpose. Maybe an alternative is to have an article that simply states the number, type, etc. types of islands in the US. That would actually be useful to readers whereas this seems to go too far into the mundane. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Verifiable, natural things, such as islands are not generally considered to be subject to WP:N. Wikipedia should aim to have information on all natural islands. This list helps in this development. Expand to cover all islands internationally. --SmokeyJoe 12:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a category is not redundant. This information is better presented in an organized list, which can include islands that do not have articles and also additional information on these islands. --musicpvm 04:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the number of red links inducates that the article is serving a useful purpose, though how many of the islands deserve articles, I am not competent to judge. In some cases, it would be useful if a few words were aded as to size and location. Perhaps it needs to be trimmed of NN islands, or to have these converted from red links to text. Peterkingiron 16:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep List appears to be maintainable as well as listing islands not in the category. I would suggest keeping all the islands in the list (possibly de-linked if NN) as WP:WIAFL suggests that non-notable items can form part of lists. Suicidalhamster 21:37, 20 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_islands_of_the_United_States&oldid=1140541512"