List of explorations : It states that it has the most "important" explorations without referencing who calls them important besides the article creator.  Even if notable, it would fall under WP:TNT and is invalid as a navigational list as it does not link to articles specifically about those explorations.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science , Archaeology , Geography , Spaceflight ,  and Transportation .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 22:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , at least in its current form.  I have no idea what the ambit is supposed to be - what are "state societies"?  Does the author have any idea what they are intending, as that term is linked to the utterly uninformative Complex society ?  If what is meant is "state-sponsored exploration", then why does it include entires like the hypothetical discovery of Hawaii in late antiquity, or Livingstone's privately funded explorations?  No rhyme or reason here.  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 05:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A society with a state ; the opposite of a stateless society .  It's a well-defined and widely used term in the social sciences.  – Joe ( talk ) 09:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah so.  That should link to Complex society#States then, I guess?  -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs ) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep, edit, and update .  A 2001 long-term article, the page lists the first sponsored human expeditions of various locals.  The topic is notable, links to various expeditionary pages, and groups these expeditions on one page.  The criteria needs to be worded differently, but that's a minor point in the overall scope of the page.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 09:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:ARTICLEAGE .  When it was written is not proof it should be kept.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Essays have some who agree and others who disagree.  Early Wikipedia articles which have stood the test of 23 years of time should receive more leeway and correction.  This one has a very good premise which can be refined and expanded.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, on the one hand, this is a very bare-bones list, and seems to have been so for quite a while.  There's no real context, and it isn't exactly the best-formatted list ever.  That said, I do think that the idea behind it is notable enough .  I personally think that it should be rewritten as prose and moved to History of human exploration , but it could also be rewritten as prose and merged with History of human migration (though they are substantially different, especially when it comes to things like oceans or planets).  I don't think keeping it as a list is a good idea, even though List of explorers is a good, closely related list, as explorations really should have some explanation and context to them, whereas explorers don't really need that.  Ships & Space ( Edits ) 00:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I would agree with Ships&Space.  Overhauling should be done, not deletion.  Lorstaking ( talk ) 09:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not opposed to a rewrite as a prose article.  But in the 23 years the article has been around, nothing has been done to fix the problem.  I am not sure why you believe it will be fixed in another 23 years.  A deletion may encourage a new article to be created that is actually notable.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Common sense, just list any explorations that have their own articles or have articles for the explorers who are notable for making them.  D r e a m Focus 07:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , pretty much per Dream Focus .  I would note that a noteworthy exploration need not have its own article to merit inclusion, if it is mentioned and cited in a supertopic article.  BD2412 T 22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as a low-quality list article duplicating List of explorers .   Not opposed to keeping this somewhere outside of mainspace if wanted as a reference for a stand-alone history of exploration article.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 00:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I'm very borderline, but will lean keep because I think the list can be improved.  I think it needs to be refocused by being retitled to something like 'List of notable explorations', and it needs a very clear and stringent inclusion criteria that other lists have, for example, List of video games considered the best .  Mel ma nn 07:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Might need some improvement but i think that it could be fixable and should be kept Onlygoodvibez ( talk ) 21:17, 31 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep