Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of beaches in the Philippines
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 keep. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of beaches in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of
placeplaces. There are only three actual beach articles in the list. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Keep Part of a bigger scheme of beaches by country. This is a perfectly valid list that meets WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a "bigger scheme of beaches by country" but not for lists of beaches. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. List of places linked with more notable and larger countries seems perfectly fine and very helpful to many people. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wikipedia is not a directory of place"—I have no idea what the hell this is supposed to mean. If I take it literally, then somehow an editor who has been around since 2004 is ignorant of WP:5P, which states that Wikipedia "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers," of which the latter quite literally is a geographical directory. postdlf (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, yes, yes, but is the list useful? Does it improve WP? Is it here becuase WP editors seem to have a fixation with lists regardless of whether they are of use to the Readers - you know - Those To Whom We Serve. We don't really know do we. Lets just delete it and move on to the next problem. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And how, exactly, would the absence of this list be more useful to readers than its presence? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, yes, yes, but is the list useful? Does it improve WP? Is it here becuase WP editors seem to have a fixation with lists regardless of whether they are of use to the Readers - you know - Those To Whom We Serve. We don't really know do we. Lets just delete it and move on to the next problem. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep list of real places (and real places are notable by default) with no policy-based argument for deletion advanced. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all deletion arguments need to be based on policy. Most are based on guidelines if they do in fact exist at all. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:59, 13 April 2012 (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.