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. Wizardman 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of environmental websites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Category serves the purpose of this page, unecyclopaedic. There is a Category:Environmental websites. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a list that will never end. Its not encyclopedic. WP:NOTDIR AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unencyclopedic list. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No clear definition of the scope of an article, and criteria for inclusion. And the list tends to include non-notable or non-encyclopedic websites. Eklipse (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This list began only a day ago. Lists have important advantages over categories -- you can append short descriptions. We should make this focus on the major websites, which can in some cases be more important than periodicals. The list of environmental periodicals is receiving keep votes. This would be a nice list. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 04:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This new list is gradually being expanded with quality entries that are notable enough to have their own WP page. No red links. Useful. Looks good to me. Johnfos (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. This list is redundant to Category:Environmental websites. I fear this list may be used for promotional purpose also. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is my combined response to most of the preceding comments.
  • It is common for a Wikipedia list to co-exist with a corresponding Wikipedia category, and vice versa. This does not justify deleting the list or the category. (Besides Wikipedia, the Encyclopædia Britannica exists. This does not justify destroying either of them.)
  • One could claim of many articles that they will never end. This does not justify deleting them.
  • The list is as encyclopedic as the other lists listed on Lists of websites.
  • Inclusion of "non-notable" or "non-encyclopedic" websites is not a valid reason for deleting the whole list; neither is the miscategorization of some articles in a category a valid reason for deleting the category. (Neither is the inclusion of imperfect articles a valid reason for destroying Wikipedia.)
  • One could claim of many articles that they may be used for commercial purpose. This does not justify deleting them.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies (in order)

• I have no problems with a list and catgory coexisting if they are both of use. In this case the category does what the list does. The list adds nothing to WP. If it was annotated it would add something but it is not. The comparison to Encyclopædia Britannica and WP is not valid since I do not want to "destroy" all of the lists (or all of the categories).
• Point taken on the extent of an article. That is why some sort of boundary is required for an article that is open to being open ended.
• The lists at "Lists of websites" all have at least some degree of annotation and therefore add content. This give it value as an encyclopaedia article.
• If the list was predominately "non-notable" or "non-encyclopedic" it would be non-encyclopedic. Who said anything about destroying WP?
• True.

-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oops! Although I did not intend to imply it, apparently something incorrect was inferred anyway. My point about not destroying either of the two encyclopedias was only a hypothetical example for comparison. Also, my later point about not destroying Wikipedia was only a hypothetical example for comparison. (Likewise, the six short conversations at Talk:Lists of environmental topics#Commitment and suitability are only hypothetical examples for comparison.)

I understand that editors differ in their styles of communication, and that they are accustomed to meet, in their daily lives, other people who also differ in their styles of communication. This can lead to misunderstandings in deletion discussions, and is one reason for my generally avoiding such discussions. Unfortunately, when I consider the time that I have spent on an article, the value that I perceive in an article, and the progress of the deletion discussion, sometimes I decide (for better or for worse) to enter the discussion.

When an editor has to spend extra time in a deletion discussion, then (s)he is like a driver in a desert having to spend extra time in mechanical repairs, and like a business owner having to spend extra time in legal proceedings. Editors might hesitate to start articles if they have to spend extra time in defending them.

(Regarding scope and length) The scope of the list is as clear as the scope of many of the external links. Wikipedia already has many long pages, including many long lists. This list might never exceed a length limit (the list being limited by the number of Wikipedia articles about environmental websites), but even if it does, then at that time it can be split into two or more lists.

-- Wavelength (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In its present state, this list does more than what a category does some things which a category does not do.

• It has a detailed lead sentence.
• The entries listed are annotated. It has annotated entries.
• It has a heading "See also" with related topics.
• It has a heading "External links" with external links.

-- Wavelength (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Revised) -- Wavelength (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Revised) -- Wavelength (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2008 (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.