Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of extreme points of Bulgaria/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was removed by Dabomb87 19:22, 20 November 2010 [1].
List of extreme points of Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Mr.crabby, WikiProject Bulgaria
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is a content fork of Geography of Bulgaria. Also, at 8 entires, it does not pass the minimum unofficial threshold of 10 entries. Nergaal (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, this list passes all criteria except for 3.b. Nergaal (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would it be a content fork, I don't see any material treating the extreme points of Bulgaria in the Geography of Bulgaria article. Also, we can't really invent more extreme points in order to get to 10 entries. Both arguments seem invalid to me. — Toдor Boжinov — 06:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralNo dab links, no dead external links.
- While I agree with Nergaal that it is a WP:CFORK, merging this list would mean going on a slash-and-burn of all the similar lists at {{Extreme points of Europe}}. The article is well-written, but the actual list could easily be slipped into Geography of Bulgaria. I'm on the fence at the moment. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but slash-and-burn through those won't be too hard since a large number of them are in a state similar to Extreme points of Belarus. Nergaal (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, OK. Delist per above. Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but slash-and-burn through those won't be too hard since a large number of them are in a state similar to Extreme points of Belarus. Nergaal (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep My comment has been left unanswered, so I fail to see the reason to delist this specific article. In my opinion, the list is detailed enough to warrant a separate article and too detailed to be merged into Geography of Bulgaria. — Toдor Boжinov — 09:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this "featured" list any better than Extreme_points_of_Andorra#Extreme_points? Nergaal (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a serious question? I think the difference is more than evident. If you have a problem with the existence of the whole series of extreme points articles, I don't think trying to delist an FL is the right way to go. — Toдor Boжinov — 08:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this "featured" list any better than Extreme_points_of_Andorra#Extreme_points? Nergaal (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep passes 3b quite handily, "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists;" (emphasis mine) That part of the clause is quite important, and the recent run of delisting- or trying to make the ten item rule of thumb some form of holy writ is quite disconcerting. Courcelles 09:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just not seeing why this has to be a separate article. Why shouldn't it be merged into Geography of Bulgaria? It offers no real commentary, just a list of coordinates. Let's look at it:
- Lat/Long graf lists the extreme points. Seriously. It says 'the northernmost point is... the easternmost is...' etc.
- The table then repeats this information, though now offering a coordinate link. Even the sources are generally duplicated.
- "Antarctica" is not a province of Bulgaria.
- Elevation graf does exactly the same. Lists the highest and lowest points, though with our first piece of relevant added info (highest peak in the Balkans). For some reason it also includes other peaks, even though they have nothing to do with being an extreme point. This section has no map.
- The table then again repeats this information.
- Why are we told the province twice? And is the name of the range "Rila Mountain"? So some basic English issues here.
- And that's it. It has two small sets of data, and prints each one twice. Based on these merits alone I have to say delist, and strongly support it being merged into the main article. --Golbez (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist I'm not convinced this is a standalone list. It's barely two short sections, which could really, really easily be merged into Geography of Bulgaria. And I doubt that anyone goes searching for "extreme points of Bulgaria]] either. It's well referenced, but wouldn't be amiss as a short addition to the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - On the state of the references alone its enough to qualify for delist. The fact it's a content fork as well just adds to it. Afro (Talk) 16:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and delist. 3b. Like Nergaal I think a small section would suffice. (@ Courcelles) Not sure about your intepretation of the "or topic". This isn't about 10 items, it is about an unnecessary fork. Would Extreme points of Vatican City be eligible for splitting out through eligibility by topic? This isn't the place for that discussion but if you want to discuss your interpretation of 3b "by topic" I'm happy to do so on a talk page. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.