Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of environmental sound articles

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. Tone 12:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Index of environmental sound articles

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

Delete. A short index of articles that not gone far in its five years of existence. The topic is too narrow to justify an article index. Indeed, the topic of " environmental sound" (whatever that may mean) does not even have an article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:Original research is being used to say these are all aspects of environmental sound. However please look into the topic and see if an article on it is possible. Borock (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Environmental sound would be fairly much synonymous with noise pollution and therefore would not justify its own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I started the page as
anthropophony. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom and Borock. Absolutely, positively bizarre that this list has even existed all these years without notice. Kudos to Alan for spotting this absurdity. Laval (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't even find a definition and it doesn't seem to relate to this section in List of noise topics.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation (and perhaps the more polished version would find a more comfortable home in "Portal" space). I think it's a little harsh to call this page "absurd"; some users will recall that 5-6 years ago, prior to the addition of the "category" feature (and long before the invention of "portals") but following exponential growth in the number of articles, there were loads of lists like these to make navigation workable: and then lists of lists to navigate between them! Categories largely supplanted the index system, most of which got deleted. Recently there has been some movement to re-establish an index-based system in some areas as it does allow more structured, centralized navigation than categories. My personal opinion is that "navigational lists" really belong in the Portal namespace, possibly as an integral part of Portal design or maybe as a subpage. At the moment this list is just a collection of related links, not a highly structured navigational aid, but it's possible it could become so in the future: the biophony/anthropophony distinction is certainly a natural one and Wikipedia now has many more articles now which might be included. TheGrappler (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding portalspace, see my replies (2 pages down from the top of) this thread: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Linkfarm. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per TheGrappler. (or userfy, if the author wishes to work on it further...) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:59, 27 August 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.