- 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. Kurykh ( talk) 05:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
List of sinkholes in Ottawa
- List of sinkholes in Ottawa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I could see this being a reasonable category, but it isn't much use as a list. In fact it is a category, Category:Sinkholes of Canada, which currently only contains the same items listed here and this list itself. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Sinkholes are an extremely common phenomenon — many, many cities of any significant size have at least one every two or three years. Ottawa is not unique; I can recall several of these in Toronto, Sudbury, Timmins and Wawa, to name just examples I'm aware of. But it's quite rare for them to actually qualify for standalone articles as independent topics in their own right, absent some evidence that they actually satisfy the ten-year test for enduring significance. But nothing listed here does, as witness the fact that three of them exist only as redirects to the road or other piece of infrastructure that they happened to occur on, and the last exists only as a redirect right back to this very list. We maintain lists of notable incidents, not lists of non-notable redirects. Bearcat ( talk) 20:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Why not? The very enthusiastic nomination does all but tell me why it should be deleted but rather tells me why the category has lesser importance than other categories. Wiki-Coffee Talk 20:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Furthermore, I can see reasons for it to be improved with more content however, I do not believe that would justify it being deleted from Wikipedia. I can just imagine using this list myself should I ever wish to know of Sink-hole events in Ottawa.
Wiki-Coffee
Talk 20:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- And why would "sink-hole events in Ottawa" even be a thing you needed to know about, to a degree different from "sink-hole events in Toronto" and "sink-hole events in Sudbury" and "sink-hole events in Timmins"? We don't and won't ever have lists of the latter, so what exactly makes Ottawa's "sink-hole events" more notable than the others?
Bearcat (
talk) 20:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- @
Bearcat: "And why would "sink-hole events in Ottawa" even be a thing you needed to know about" If I was studying and needed to know about sinkholes in that area then this cat would be useful. "We don't and won't ever have lists of the latter" well I am not voting on those lists at the moment. Each of those would need to be judged on the merit of its nomination. In this case, I believe that having the category here does not effect anything and could only ever be used by those actively seeking specific information and could only ever produce constructive results for those people. I will happily move towards expansion of the list.
Wiki-Coffee
Talk 20:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- While I tend to agree with the nominator and Bearcat, let's not get sidetracked into a WP:NOTINTERESTING argument. That's not the issue here. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- @
Bearcat: "And why would "sink-hole events in Ottawa" even be a thing you needed to know about" If I was studying and needed to know about sinkholes in that area then this cat would be useful. "We don't and won't ever have lists of the latter" well I am not voting on those lists at the moment. Each of those would need to be judged on the merit of its nomination. In this case, I believe that having the category here does not effect anything and could only ever be used by those actively seeking specific information and could only ever produce constructive results for those people. I will happily move towards expansion of the list.
Wiki-Coffee
Talk 20:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- And why would "sink-hole events in Ottawa" even be a thing you needed to know about, to a degree different from "sink-hole events in Toronto" and "sink-hole events in Sudbury" and "sink-hole events in Timmins"? We don't and won't ever have lists of the latter, so what exactly makes Ottawa's "sink-hole events" more notable than the others?
Bearcat (
talk) 20:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Furthermore, I can see reasons for it to be improved with more content however, I do not believe that would justify it being deleted from Wikipedia. I can just imagine using this list myself should I ever wish to know of Sink-hole events in Ottawa.
Wiki-Coffee
Talk 20:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete No enduring significance for sinkhole articles, much less a list of them. Dog bites, drug busts, neighbors complaining of loud noise, and other Daily Blotter newspaper events are not automatically notable for a WP article. First Light ( talk) 03:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. This list was pure deception with its use of multiple "Main article" templates [1]. None of the sinkholes in the list has its own article. Each "Main article" link is to a miniscule section in the various WP articles about streets or areas in Ottawa. I have copied the text from those articles to the list and removed the "Main article" nonsense. I've also added some more references and expanded the lede to contextualise the list. It's conceivable that this list could be expanded into something of encyclopedic value, but I have no strong feelings one way or the other about keeping it. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as First Light said, no enduring significance. Lepricavark ( talk) 02:13, 4 February 2017 (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.