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. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply

List of sinkholes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article, /info/en/?search=Sinkhole, already contains a list of notable examples. Sinkholes are pretty common place, I don't think this requires a dedicated list. EditorDownUnder ( talk) 21:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Agree with EditorDownUnder, this doesn't need it's own list. -- Dane2007 22:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep I don't know of any WP policy that says we shouldn't have a list of sinkholes. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 22:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment @ Thoughtmonkey: My thinking is that WP:NOT and WP:SAL may apply in this case. I could be wrong though, but just giving some insight into where my decision came from. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I don't see anything there that's a problem. Sinkhole is well defined, and the items are notable and not that numerous. I do agree with you that we don't need the list, but that's not a reason to delete it. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 00:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I also agree with EditorDownUnder that a dedicated list is not required. Thoughtmonkey ( talk) 13:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC) reply

But sink holes are numerous and common place. EditorDownUnder ( talk) 23:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC) reply

That has nothing to do with anything. Only the notable ones have been listed. Not every sinkhole is notable. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 23:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Sinkholes. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. This is a more comprehensive list compared to the one at the main Sinkhole article. Another option is to merge the list to the Sinkhole article, rather than deleting. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep, this is an acceptable way to present notable sinkholes. I think it needs a bit of clean-up, but the fact that sinkholes are "common place" (sic) is a pretty nonsensical reason to want to delete a list. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 02:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - it's a reasonable way to organise the information. An article on sinkholes as a topic, a category for notable sinkholes with their own article, a list for sinkholes reported in media but not notable enough for their own article to keep the main sinkholes article concise is a reasonable way to present this topic. Blythwood ( talk) 11:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - mountains and rivers are fairly commonplace too and there are loads of lists for them, so that's not a strong argument. The article, sinkhole, should probably not have a list though, unless it's very short and specific. Bermicourt ( talk) 08:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As Tavix said, this article might need cleanup, but AfD is not cleanup. Ditto North America. -- Anarchyte ( work | talk) 12:10, 14 August 2016 (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.