Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architecture of present-day nations and states Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Architecture_of_present-day_nations_and_states

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. The other articles named in the discussion were never tagged for deletion, but feel free to nominate them separately. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of present-day nations and states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Delete. Does not add anything that the category system already does. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - the reason for deletion is invalid - see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates; according to that guideline, redundancy between lists and the category system is not against the rules, is not harmful, but is beneficial and encouraged. Compare Lists by country and Category:Lists by country. Note that lists present information in ways that categories do not, they can display all of the relevant information on the same page (reducing clicks, while categories are forced to branch into further categories), and lists may provide additional information imbedded in each list which categories cannot. Lists also provide redlinks to show what isn't covered yet, which categories are incapable of doing. Also, this list is a member of a set of similar lists:
  • Agriculture in present-day nations and states
  • Cultures of present-day nations and states
  • Economies of present-day nations and states
  • Geography of present-day nations and states
  • History of present-day nations and states
  • Law enforcement in present-day nations and states
  • Politics of present-day states
  • Transport in present-day nations and states
  • Tourism in present-day nations and states

The Transhumanist 18:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete This is a poor topic for a list, and is easily handled by the existing category system. The article formatting is also exceedingly poor (such as the flags, alphabetical layout). This article is a time sink and redundant, with no notability or utility of its own. Although redundancy is not "against the rules", they should in some way be complimentary. This is just a poorly formatted version of the category which requires manual updating and lacks sources. Verbal chat 18:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CLN. As navigational aids, there are advantages to both categories and lists. Categories "update" themselves every time an article is categorized; on the other hand, a list can show, at a glance, the absence of an article, which is an important part of any project. The Architecture of Afghanistan is no less notable than the Architecture of Argentina, but nobody has yet written about the former. I admit that I think that little flags are overused, but they're not inappropriate in this case. I'm not sure what the problem is with "alphabetical layout", or what the improvement would be, since that's what one would expect from an index. Mandsford 01:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per the comment below, article namespace articles are not for carrying out project tasks. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. While I appreciate that a non-trivial amount of work has been invested in these articles, this sort of list is precisely why we have categories. Lists certainly have their uses, but manual duplication of categories without additional content is a bit off. The Transhumanist and Mandsford make a good point about the redlinks; since I would argue that each of the linked articles is inherently notable, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Requested articles or at the appropriate WikiProject. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, projectify them to the approp WikiProject. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a perfect solution. Verbal chat

I would welcome the redlinks (without flags, bolds, and in a compact form or a subpage) to WP:WikiProject Architecture#New articles, where the need for some of these articles has been already identified. --Elekhh (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. These are redundant to categories and to navigation templates (which include the redlinks). They are inelegant. Abductive (reasoning) 08:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, redundant to categories, which are self-maintaining. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - reproduce categories with little or no additional information. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 23:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All redundant. Can be redirected to categories (i.e. category:History by country, etc) Maashatra11 (talk) 10:55, 30 July 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.