Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of online map services

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. Further discussion about a potential merge can occur on an article talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of online map services

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

Indiscriminate collection of external links violating WP:ISNOT (especially WP:LINKFARM). Randykitty (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are a few blue linked entries which would be enough to satisfy WP:LISTN so the article just requires cleanup. Full support for deleting every single list entry that uses an external link as per WP:NOTLINKFARM. Which would be approximately 80% of them. Ajf773 (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — agree with Ajf773, this needs a cleanup as a list rather than deletion. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with both points as well. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed all external links and redlinks. Many of those links were to different pages on just one website. Unfortunately, after cleanup, almost no content is left. If people think this is worht saving, merging to an appropriate target (as "see also", for example) may be better. --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page Web mapping links to this one under "See also." Is that a good reason to keep this page, or perhaps this page can be merged to it?Pfifferling22 (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more like a reason to merge it there. --Randykitty (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2017 (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.