The result was keep. - Bobet 09:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I initially prodded a few of these, but when I discovered how many more there were, I decided more community input from AfD would be a good idea. All of the articles are just lists of where the countries' missions are located. I think this violates WP:NOT's section on directories. It's useful information, but it's better placed at wikitravel. If someone knows whether the creator of these articles can relicense them under wikitravel's CC license, please follow-up with him at User talk:Kransky. Thanks!-- Kchase T 09:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn below.-- Kchase T 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The issue at hand raised by Kchase is whether the diplomatic mission articles are simply lists. I referred to the Wikipedia is not a Directory for further clarification.
The first no-no mentioned is that Wikipedia should not be a list or repository of loosely associated topics. A list of aphorisms or quotes is definitely out, but reference tables and tabular information can be included. If the essence of the prohibition can be explained by is different between the examples, then it would be that what is listed should be reasonably focussed and the list in itself be reasonably integral. You would accept The Ten Commandments or the Periodic Table or Nixon's Enemies List, but not Chinese proverbs, since there is no direct relationship between the parts to one whole (though The Thoughts of Chairman Mao is okay).
I am not just listing a country's embassies, but I am also showing its diplomatic network. That is the whole that merits its inclusion. Where a country chooses to fly its flag gives an indication where a country chooses to rationalise and focus its diplomatic activities. Only by looking at the matricies of who's-represented-where in the form of a list can you discern some interesting choices - Why has Iceland got an embassy in Dar es Salaam? and Senegal has a consulate in Siena? How come Jordan has an embassy in Tel Aviv but Indonesia doesn't? Who has a wider network in Africa - Japan or China? Which countries choose to send an ambassador to Pyongyang ?
None of these articles can be considered to be in violation of the second point - they are neither genealogical or phonebook entries, nor do they violate the third point - they are not resources for conducting business.
I do not consider Wikitravel to be an appropriate solution, as the intention of the lists is to chart the constellation of diplomatic relations of countries around the world today, and not to help tourists who have lost their passports.
I foresee three solutions:
(a) the motion to delete the articles is defeated (b) additional content is added to the entries each article, such per List of locations in Spira which is cited as an example of merged groups of small articles based on a core topic. There is a limit to how much extra information can be given, and we could be just repeating details in other articles. (c) The pages are deleted and the contents are appended to a relevant article, like foreign relations of Japan. This would however make the other articles considerably large and I predict people will end up wondering why aren't they given their own space.
Kransky 12:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) (author) reply
The result was keep. - Bobet 09:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply
I initially prodded a few of these, but when I discovered how many more there were, I decided more community input from AfD would be a good idea. All of the articles are just lists of where the countries' missions are located. I think this violates WP:NOT's section on directories. It's useful information, but it's better placed at wikitravel. If someone knows whether the creator of these articles can relicense them under wikitravel's CC license, please follow-up with him at User talk:Kransky. Thanks!-- Kchase T 09:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn below.-- Kchase T 16:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply
The issue at hand raised by Kchase is whether the diplomatic mission articles are simply lists. I referred to the Wikipedia is not a Directory for further clarification.
The first no-no mentioned is that Wikipedia should not be a list or repository of loosely associated topics. A list of aphorisms or quotes is definitely out, but reference tables and tabular information can be included. If the essence of the prohibition can be explained by is different between the examples, then it would be that what is listed should be reasonably focussed and the list in itself be reasonably integral. You would accept The Ten Commandments or the Periodic Table or Nixon's Enemies List, but not Chinese proverbs, since there is no direct relationship between the parts to one whole (though The Thoughts of Chairman Mao is okay).
I am not just listing a country's embassies, but I am also showing its diplomatic network. That is the whole that merits its inclusion. Where a country chooses to fly its flag gives an indication where a country chooses to rationalise and focus its diplomatic activities. Only by looking at the matricies of who's-represented-where in the form of a list can you discern some interesting choices - Why has Iceland got an embassy in Dar es Salaam? and Senegal has a consulate in Siena? How come Jordan has an embassy in Tel Aviv but Indonesia doesn't? Who has a wider network in Africa - Japan or China? Which countries choose to send an ambassador to Pyongyang ?
None of these articles can be considered to be in violation of the second point - they are neither genealogical or phonebook entries, nor do they violate the third point - they are not resources for conducting business.
I do not consider Wikitravel to be an appropriate solution, as the intention of the lists is to chart the constellation of diplomatic relations of countries around the world today, and not to help tourists who have lost their passports.
I foresee three solutions:
(a) the motion to delete the articles is defeated (b) additional content is added to the entries each article, such per List of locations in Spira which is cited as an example of merged groups of small articles based on a core topic. There is a limit to how much extra information can be given, and we could be just repeating details in other articles. (c) The pages are deleted and the contents are appended to a relevant article, like foreign relations of Japan. This would however make the other articles considerably large and I predict people will end up wondering why aren't they given their own space.
Kransky 12:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) (author) reply