Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Rim capitals

From 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 of the debate was delete. Particularly important points made in this discussion were: the numerous errors in the article, the lack of a coherent selection criteria, and the fact that many of the city descriptions are just copied and pasted from the main city articles. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pacific Rim capitals

The title is POV fo shizzle. An NPOV title would be "list of big cities around the Pacific Ocean" which doesn't seem to be a necessary or useful article. SchmuckyTheCat 17:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong delete but not per nom. ("Pacific Rim" is a proper and non-POV name!) As the original prodder (this is a contested prod), I contend that this article will be better replaced with a category, since all it does is to list the capital cities, then copy the description over verbatim (see the "[1]" dangling from Singapore listing!) from the respective city articles. I had already partly populated the replacement category Category:Pacific Rim capitals when this article was de-prodded. Therefore suggest deletion as duplicate of now-existing category. Kimchi.sg 18:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
to explain: "capitals" is POV. At least half of the entries are not "capitals". SchmuckyTheCat 18:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, more useful than a category, since it can mention where Dili is, for those who aren't too clear. Kappa 18:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Does the article on Dili not explain where it is? SchmuckyTheCat 18:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I imagine it does, and I'm sure that clicking random links to see what they are about is great entertainment for people who aren't actually looking for information. Kappa 18:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - The article would be better replaced as a list. If not, then move to "Major cities of the Pacific Rim" — ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 18:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: So is this a vote for keep, rename and rework, instead of delete? — Instantnood 19:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename and rework. — Instantnood 19:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Into what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 23:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename. I don't see how "capitals" is POV. If there are things on the list which should not be there, they should be removed. It is not a reason to get rid of the list. --Fastfission 20:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "capital" isn't POV, it's utterly meaningless. --Calton | Talk 23:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If one wants to read about the cities covered by this article, Wikipedia has articles about all of them already. --Metropolitan90 21:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Long Beach, California is a "capital"? By what conceivable definition of "capital" can that be true? And can't even see the point here -- and apparently neither could its creator, since the intro reads (and I quote):
The Pacific Rim is one of the world'a fastest growing regions, and
and that's it. --Calton | Talk 23:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Metropolitan90 and Kimchi.sg although I have no idea why a rename should be made if this is kept. The title is fine. SorryGuy 23:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The title is fine? Long Beach is the capital of what? SchmuckyTheCat 23:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems like a nice use of list format to provide an overview of these cities. -- JJay 18:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and remove non-capitals. More useful than a category. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, although not a POV title, I fail to see how this is useful to be in an encyclopædia. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--cj | talk 12:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 12:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no reason why capital cities and pacific rim should be linked like this. The info has been cut and pasted from city articles, nothing says why this is relevant to the pacific rim. No other regions have these articles - there isnt Western European capitals etc. The Pacific rim is a vague term anyway - Yangon, Myanmar is on the Indian Ocean, and there are no South American cities mentioned. If state capitals can be included why not include all 47 capitals of the Prefectures of Japan or the 79 Provinces of the Philippines --Astrokey44 03:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as useful list. Capitalistroadster 20:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    How is a subjective collection of information with no basis useful? --cj | talk 03:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename or rework content. novacatz 01:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: those of you who keep saying this is "useful", could you do me a favor? Could you explain exactly how this is useful? Can any of you even tell me the point of this misnamed list? Even the creator of the list had no clue. --Calton | Talk 03:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Please try to moderate your tone on AfD. Your point is a good one, your attitude is not. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • delete. This article might have had some point, but the current version is just so wrong and POV it would be easier to throw it away and start again if somebody wanted to. --Scott Davis Talk 13:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Example errors and oddities include:
  • If Fiji and Hawaii are considered Pacific Rim, why not every other Pacific Ocean island group?
  • Wrong capital of British Columbia
  • Four capitals in California, but none in Alaska?
  • Canberra is over a mountain range, so it's watershed doesn't even flow into the Pacific.
  • Two capitals of New Zealand
  • If state capitals of the USA and Australia count (but Brisbane is missing), why not of Mexico and Indonesia?
And that's just what I could see from the table of contents! --Scott Davis Talk 13:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Listcruft plus repeat of information that's available on other more specific pages. Zaxem 09:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per, amongst others, User:Zaxem. --Roisterer 05:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, content fork of the respective pages, not really useful. Sandstein 09:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this article is going to be deleted. I'd like to archive its edit history and talk page outside of the article namespace. An option would by my user namespace. — Instantnood 20:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
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.