Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme Timeline

"

: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 (non-admin closure), All applicable opinions are keep, 'too detailed' is far from a reason to delete. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 22:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)"

=[[Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme Timeline]]=

:{{la|Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme Timeline}} ([{{fullurl:Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme Timeline|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Plains Water Enhancement Scheme Timeline}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

A chunk of text quite rightly chopped out of the Central Plains Water article. Far too detailed for an encyclopedia. This should be on an external website. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete While this article is well sourced, it is overly detailed. If all the unnecessary information was removed, there would be so little left that it would be best in Central Plains Water anyways. Captain panda 14:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, well sourced and becoming a significantly controversial topic in New Zealand.-gadfium 18:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —gadfium 18:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per gadfium and WP:PAPER. The comment by the nominator of "Far too detailed for an encyclopedia." is not applicable to WP. As noted it was right to split it from the main article. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 09:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree that "too detailed" is not grounds for deletion. I know that other stuff exists is not a valid argument but Wikipedia has many timelines already and we've organized them into a list and a category so they seem to be a well-established part of WP. This is a more specialized timeline than most but again that's not grounds for deletion. And we all agree that it was sensible to split it from the main article. Qwfp (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2008 (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.

"