Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maltese Cities
Source: 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 Merge to List of cities in Malta. (There seems to be an argument for merging that article to Malta, so you may want to skip the intermediate step.) Yomanganitalk 10:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maltese Cities
The content of the article is already included in other articles. The article is highly unstructured and frankly pointless. Vide talk page of the article. Maltesedog 10:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Malta is a beautiful country and deserves wider coverage in Wikipedia. It seems that someone with an attachment to Malta is adding as much information (mainly in the form os lists) as they can, which is not what is wanted. See the relevant ongong discussions on "List of streets in..." While I would hate to curb enthusiasm for recording information about Malta, this is not the way to do it. Emeraude 10:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Because we have List of cities in Malta. However some of this information might be added to that list if relevant and verified.--T. Anthony 12:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong obvious merge to the List. Nobody has demonstrated yet why the data in this messy article should be deleted. - ]
- Comment It is duplicate information - already included in other articles. See the talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltesedog (talk • contribs) 2006-10-29 12:54:54
- Then Wikipedia:Duplicate articles should have been your first stop, not AFD. Uncle G 13:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncle G, that link recommends merging. It is obvious that merging to the Malta article as requested is not relevant, the content of which is already included in the article of the villages. For this reason, deletion is more appropriate. Maltesedog 15:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That the article contains duplicate information is not an argument that Wikipedia:Duplicate articles should not be the first stop. Indeed, precisely the contrary. Uncle G 19:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The content is already there. I don't get your point Maltesedog 17:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a complex one. "The content is already there." is synonymous with "This article duplicates another article.". Hence Wikipedia:Duplicate articles, not AFD, should be your first stop. Uncle G 03:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but it was actually my first step. If the content has already been merged, its pointless to retain! Even speedy delete would have been fine. Maltesedog 16:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have merged content, then that is an automatic keep. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. Deletion and merger are mutually exclusive, as required by the GFDL. Remember this principle: If you had wanted this content deleted, you wouldn't have merged it into another article. Uncle G 21:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I simply mean that the content of the article was already there! It wasn't merged now that this article has been discovered. Anyway. Maltesedog 14:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then step #2 of the procedure at ]
- I am sorry, but the "List" does not say that Qormi is surrounded on the East by Santa Venera, Marsa and Ħamrun etc etc etc, and therefore does not have all the information the Cities has. So no, there is what to merge, and the above discussion is therefore ridiculous. - crztalk 13:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I simply mean that the content of the article was already there! It wasn't merged now that this article has been discovered. Anyway. Maltesedog 14:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have merged content, then that is an automatic keep.
- I'm sorry but it was actually my first step. If the content has already been merged, its pointless to retain! Even speedy delete would have been fine. Maltesedog 16:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a complex one. "The content is already there." is synonymous with "This article duplicates another article.". Hence
- That the article contains duplicate information is not an argument that
- Uncle G, that link recommends merging. It is obvious that merging to the Malta article as requested is not relevant, the content of which is already included in the article of the villages. For this reason, deletion is more appropriate. Maltesedog 15:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then
- Comment It is duplicate information - already included in other articles. See the talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltesedog (talk • contribs) 2006-10-29 12:54:54
- Merge/delete. The List of cities in Malta could be made better. Pavel Vozenilek 16:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the ever-vigilant M.D. whose judgment I trust when it comes to All Things Malta Eusebeus 20:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment Maltesedog 17:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, merge and redirect It's a very plausible search term for List of cities in Malta. Mereda 07:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge There's no need for a list of 'cities' in Malta, and most right-thinking people in more commonly-sized countries would scoff at the idea of calling these cities, except possibly Valletta and Mdina, by virtue of being the capital and former capital. The list of local councils serves perfectly well for a simple listing, and the actual content in this article is better placed within the articles for each particular municipality. Rhialto 22:32, 4 November 2006 (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.