Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environmental history topics

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of environmental history topics

)

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

Delete. this list is not needed and it is difficult to set boundaries fro the topic. As the list currently stands the entries are too broad and don't directly relate to environmental history. A list without annotation such as this one does not do anything that a category already does. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I went to the category and the list looked more useful.
Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

On the contrary the category is a better representation of the topic. The editor who started the page has a history of creating lists that stray from the intended topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The category listing (
WP:NOTDUP. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
- I would argue that the category is a better representation of the topic of environmental history. A list is not needed in this case. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list article should be kept based on two, actually distinct grounds. If evaluated as a
WP:NOTDUP advice. So what rationale does the nominator provide for deletion: A list is not needed in this case. Other than the category argument, what case are we talking about. A quick perusal of reasons for deletion policy reveals there's no deletion policy that addresses the Need for an article. If indeed WP had a policy that addressed the need to have or not have article, nom's rationale might have some merit, but no such policy exists, thus nom has offered no rationale and valid reason for deletion. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
- I don't know what you want WP to be but I want something the is reliable, robust and useful to
  readers. This list does not do anything to achieve these ends. You can wikilawyer all you like but it is still a bad list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete -
justify the first. Where is this list drawn from? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I drew the set of articles with titles beginning "History of ..." from

Portal:Contents/A–Z index

.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But did it actually need to be spunout from the primary list? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with titles beginning "History of ..." are listed on 33 pages (and part of a 34th page) of

Portal:Contents/A–Z index

. I have spent time in searching for and finding 49 pertaining to environmental history, and now they are conveniently listed on one page.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two lists are very different. "Environment is an immense field", and the
List of environmental topics (now names Index of environmental articles, with many hundreds of articles arranged in a single alphabetic sequence, is not really all that helpful for anyone looking for something specific. Whatever more specific lists we can do are good things, because they facilitate browsing, one of the two key uses of an encyclopedia . Whether a category is a better representation is irrelevant, the practice is to have both whenever possible -- I thinks it's a pretty clear guideline by now, though a few still disagree. People will use whichever they want to use. I don't see why we should put one out of reach. An encyclopedia with 3.8 million articles needs every device for organization we can devise and maintain. I agree completely with Alan;s criteria of reliable, robust and useful to readers. But in practice reliable and robust are goals, always subject to continuous improvement. We don't restrict ourselves to featured lists, andy more than we remove everything that is not a featured article. People will use whatever they find useful. I find it hard to argue they would be better off without it. (agreed some lists , like some articles, can be incomplete or misleading enough for that to be true, but this isn't anywhere near so bad as that, and, like most, the defects can can fixed by editing.) DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, educational, encyclopedic and appropriate. — Cirt (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a list article that aids in navigation, listing related articles in Wikipedia. Dream Focus 06:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It will probably be useful to have a list article on this. However, the list of books at the end is not useful and should be removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2011 (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.