Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:31, 26 June 2010

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Lists. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Lists|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Lists. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Lists

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 delete. Tone 22:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kesha songs

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

Article contains no references, is poorly written and she already has a Discography page, page is non-sense. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 08:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of this is covered on Kesha Discography Btilm 15:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Kesha discography already exists. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not necessarily nonsense, but definitely redundant when Kesha discography already exists. Also, the unverified list of unreleased songs is just fan trivia. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speddy Delete its just an unnessasary other page. STAT -Verse 03:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undeniable delete, this should have been deleted using speedy nom because it recreates material already existant. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles that have not been published in the real world. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that that this list topic is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Kesha discography. The redundancy issue is valid and as long as information is not lost via deletion then merging is not necessary. The argument that this list (redundant or not) is OR because the article title has never been published is without merit, and reflects an extremely minority position that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of WP:OR in relationship to article titles.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into the discography article; totally redundant (and possibly a CSD#A10). —fetch ·comms 21:59, 29 June 2010 (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.

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 delete. JForget 23:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of flora (LCRV-picturesEZ)

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

It has been over three years since the last discussion on these lists, which I think merit another look. Last time around, the discussion centered on these articles' usefulness as a "field guide," but Wikipedia is not a guide. It also seems to be an abuse of the gallery script, see WP:IG. Many species are represented more than once with multiple images. The worst problem appears to be a complete lack of references that these species occur in the area claimed. This is something we usually take care of with categories, e.g. Category:Flora of the Great Basin desert region Rkitko ^(talk) 01:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikimedia Commons, or if already there, delete all, this article was tagged to be copied there. These dont appear to be encyclopedia articles, and i dont think they could be turned into such without renaming and restructuring entirely. no refs doesnt help. some of the target articles dont indicate this is in the plants precise range, so not accurate.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue against page transwiki to Commons. As far as I can tell, all the images are already on Commons, but the galleries would need a slash-and-burn before any transwiki. Like I said above, the same plant is often represented by multiple images, but most worrying is that the Lower Colorado River Valley is a poorly-defined geographical area. These plants may occur in the vicinity. I think it would be much easier if someone, working from a WP:RS, would start anew on a single gallery at Commons where each species only had one picture. I don't think these galleries would be any help in that effort as one could easily just search for the species again on Commons, making better choices than those in these pages. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Image galleries belong on Commons and these images are already categorized over there. Reso lute 01:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia pages should not be "Mere collections of photographs or media files". In my opinion these pages have insufficient encyclopaedic context to be suitable for the project; as has been said above, Commons would be a more appropriate location. Guest9999 (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as Wikipedia is NOT a repository of images. Tavix | Talk 00:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as image galleries. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2010 (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.

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of neighborhoods in Greenville, South Carolina

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

The neighborhoods in Greenville, South Carolina are that of the country and not that of the city proper. Chris (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to be a reason to delete, as it's a problem that could be resolved by editing (and possibly moving) the page. snigbrook (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles that have not been published in the real world. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that that this list topic is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if anything, this could be covered in Greenville, South Carolina. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 30 June 2010 (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.

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 merge to The Sunday Telegraph. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top Track 100

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

The article is about a list published by a newspaper. I don't see why we should have an article that can focus only on a single POV.
It has to be updated yearly.

Delete it or at best merge it with The Sunday Telegraph Forty two^{You talkin' to me?} 04:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — Merge with The Sunday Telegraph in a severely cut down version. Kudos to the creator of the article, though. This information is just better kept on the newspaper website and not Wikipedia. mboverload @ 05:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2010 (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.

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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in the European Union with more than 100,000 inhabitants

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

There are two problems with the article. One problem, which in itself doesn't merit deletion, is its poor quality. Different users happily put in the numbers they want for each city; sometimes with best intentions, sometimes with patriotic intentions. There is no single source on which the list is based, explaining why it's in such a bad shape. In short, for some cities the population of a greater area is included, for other cities just the population of the city proper. The only purpose of the list, I assume, is to provide a ranked list of European cities. The list is useless for that purpose, as the different figures used are not comparable. This far, I've merely mentioned a (severe) problem that could be fixed. However, I don't see any purpose of this list. We already have so many lists of cities in the European Union that we could make a list of those lists... There's Largest cities of the European Union by population within city limits, Largest urban areas of the European Union, List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population, Largest population centres in the European Union. As this article is in a bad state, not possible to fix (there's no source to use) and quite frankly rather redundant, I suggest it be deleted. I don't see it adding any useful information to that found in the other four articles listed above. Jeppiz (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Each city listed has its own article, many of those contain population data with references. Seems this might be usefull to someone (students looking for jobs in larger cities, travelers, etc). Seems to conform to WP:LIST. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really buy either argument, but the only one relevant to deleting or not is the second one. The information might be useful but did you take the time to check out all the existing lists? The first one (out of the five lists of cities in the EU) is exactly the same as this one, except that it stops at 300.000 and this one stops at 100.000. If the information is useful, it would make more sense to include the cities with less than 300.000 and more than 100.000 in that list, instead of having this as a fifth list of cities in the EU.Jeppiz (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was prepared to say keep because of the topic, but it's ridiculous that the "sources" are other Wikipedia articles. Lazy ass work like that is okay for things that people would not be expected to take seriously, but not for something that is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. So we're supposed to assume that the numbers are accurate? I don't think so. Take your collection of little flags somewhere else. Mandsford 19:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sourced articles have their populations sourced. Someone just needs to do their homwork and add the correct sources to the list. Clean up is not a reason for deletion. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but repetitive and redudant articles certainly are. I'm pointing out again, for the third time, that there are five(!) separate lists for ranking cities in the EU by population. Have you even read my motives for starting the AfD and looked at the other lists?Jeppiz (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List articles, by nature, are redundant. So are most catagories for that matter. (WP:CLN) However WP has plenty of space and as long as the list has a unique criteria for inclusion (which it does) I see no reason to delete. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what would that unique critieria be? Going all the way to down to 100.000 instead of the one stopping at 300.000? By the same logic, we could create 20 more lists with cities in the EU. One could stop at 200.000, one at 150.000, one at 80.000 and so on. In your opinion, how many different lists ranking the population of cities in the EU do we need? I struggle to understand why five is the magic number...Jeppiz (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In an attempt to rescue the article, Gtstricky has started adding references to it. While the effort certainly is commendable, it highlights two problems:

1.Despite my stating in every post here that the main problem is the redundancy (we have five lists about this), Gtstricky still seems to think that the problem is the numbers. It's not.

2. In adding "sources", Gtstricky has made my point better than I could have done myself. He has added references for the first three cities. For London, the reference is "Woodlands Junior School"... Bad as it is, it still pales in comparison to the source for Madrid, being an Iranian tourist agency. Sure, we can find some numbers for any city if we search the web and happily ignore WP:RS but what's the value of such a list? If a junior school and an Iranian tourist agency is what we resort to for London and Madrid, what on earth will we add as sources for small cities in Bulgaria or Latvia? The list is a mishmash of WP:OR, as Gtstricky has exemplified very well.

So once again: the numbers in the list are not reliable, but even if they were, the list would be completely redudant as there already are four lists ranking cities in the EU.Jeppiz (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had spent all of 5 minutes looking fro references. I just went and changed them to official census data. As for the multiple list arguements, see above. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I said that your effort is commendable. Still, it did highlight the problem of wildly improper sources being used and a general lack of reliability. At the moment, around 10 out of almost 500 cities are sourced, the rest are just random numbers.Jeppiz (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that a similarly-named article (List of cities in the United States with over 100,000 people) was moved to List of United States cities by population. I agree that there are problems with having "the statistics that anyone can edit" and that we seem to have problems with redundant lists. If this is neglected and has become inaccurate, then I would change my vote to delete.

Comment The problem with the other (redundant) lists is that they are much less comprehensive. --Boson (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 100,000 is a typical division point. In Germany, for instance it is the dividing line between a city (Großsstadt) and a town (Stadt). So the list for more than 100,000 would suggest itself as the one to keep, if any are to be deleted. If the other lists are better sourced, the references could be copied from there. See, for instance, List of cities in Germany with more than 100,000 inhabitants --Boson (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSince verification seems to be a problem, I have downloaded the latest available figures (last update May 2010) from the Eurostat database and put them on the article's talk page. There may be some discrepancies, so the table may need adjusting, and it would probably be sensible to add the reference year, since some countries only supply older data. If these data are added to the table, that should make it not only the most comprehensive but also the best and most consistently sourced table; so we could then consider whether to delete the other redundant articles or, if they contain additional information, merge them with this article. --Boson (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Boson. Plenty of maps have towns identified by population, and the 100k threshold is one of them. Perfectly fine list, with a clear inclusion criteria. If the article is of poor quality, as the nom states, then fix it. Lugnuts (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate doubts about the accuracy of numbers do not fall in the category of "so fix it". This isn't a question of grammar or punctuation. We're still a long way from overcoming the stereotype of "You can't believe anything you see on Wikipedia". A big thank you to User:Jeppiz for nominating a page that was pretending to be an encyclopedia article. Mandsford 18:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles that have not been published in the real world. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that that this list topic is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research. This list is an amalgam of existing list that are published, but it is still an original topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case we better rewrite WP:LISTS and WP:CLN Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list meets WP:list albeit much of the deletion rationale above about the sourcing, redundancy and inherently problematic issues with dynamic data such as population information are legitimate points for discussion. None of that rationale is strong enough to warrant deletion, but argues for article improvement. The deletion rationale claiming this list is OR because the list title has never been published anywhere is entirely without merit, displays a true lack of understanding of our policies on OR and is a tired refrain seen in too many List related AfDs that will become no more true no matter how many times it is repeated. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, at least put a big disclaimer on the top that says "We have no idea where the authors got this stuff, they could have made the numbers up for all we know, one would have to be a f***ing idiot to rely upon this for any purpose, Wikipedia was not intended to be taken seriously." Mandsford 13:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford, I don't necessarily disagree with you, although such a strong caveat might be detrimental to our credibility. That said, city populations are available in reliable publications--online and in print. We just need to find them and cite them in the article. Additionally, a bit more data about the timeframe as to when the population figure applies will make this a much more useful list. Our job as editors is to find ways to improve these types of articles and encourage and help others learn how to do the same.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, wouldn't it be better if this was in userspace until someone can verify it? The big mistake— and it's a huge one—- was for someone to compile this table without putting in any way to verify it. When it comes to statistics, not bothering to mention where the information came from is incredibly stupid, and it shouldn't be accepted. Put another way, if someone writes that Barcelona is the capital of Spain, I know fairly quickly that it's a mistake and that it can be corrected. But if someone tosses out the number that the population of Barcelona is 1,605,602 people, I don't know, and all sorts of questions come up-- When? Based on what? Who says? But most of all, where did you get that from? I can't see keeping an article on display to avoid hurting someone's feelings. And I certainly can't see keeping it as a backlash to the usual comments by Gavin Collins. He has his own view of what Wikipedia should be, but to the extent that they have any effect on the outcome of a debate, I think they result more often in an article being kept. This one needs to be kept in userspace until it's ready to be an encyclopedia artcle. Mandsford 16:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a disclaimer. As I wrote above, I have put Eurostat data on the talk page. Just replace the data with the sourced data that I have already placed on the article's talk page. I think Eurostat must count as a reliable source for population data. I am not an expert with tables, and I didn't want to go to the trouble of putting the data on the article page while the deletion debate is still going on. Also, it wouldn't hurt for someone else to check the data. But anyone can take the data from the talk page at any time. --Boson (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boson, Thanks for your initative on this one. Hopefully we can get the data and sourcing integrated in due course.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2010 (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.

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of logos used in Logorama

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

The logos are certainly an important aspect of the film but mostly appear in vast number for fractions of a second, and mostly appear arbitrarily, although some are put to clever use. I suggest leaving the notable ones (probably Michelin tires, Ronald McDonald, and Big Boy) as part of the plot summary of the main article and deleting this list. .froth. (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles that have not been published in the real world. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that that this list topic is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:53, 28 June 2010 (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.

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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal F.C. squad numbers

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

per WP:NOT#STATS. This article, though it has a nice lede, contains no information of encyclopedic value. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Barcelona squad numbers Sandman888 (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Luxic (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a step too far into non-encyclopaedic stats assembly. Any interesting features can be summarised in the main article. TerriersFan (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTCRUFT. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The content is nice, and obviously well-researched, but the topic is not exactly encyclopaedic. – Pee Jay 14:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any prose not already included in Arsenal F.C. strip to that article, do not merge the big tables -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and previous AfD. Giant Snowman 22:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the prose (but not the table) to an article on the football club. Useful and decently sourced. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:44, 27 June 2010 (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.

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 delete. JForget 15:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident Republican Attacks

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

Totally unsourced; content duplicated from articles, list a duplication of properly sourced timeline articles and heavily biased towards recent events. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 22:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom. ninety:one 00:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am currently undecided on this, but considering a merge/redirect to Dissident republican or move to List of attacks attributed to Irish republican dissidents à la List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, List of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military, List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, or List of attacks against Israeli civilians before 1967. It seems as though with a proper introduction and referencing that this could be made into a legitimate article, but I'm not sure. Other than Republican Action Against Drugs, I'm not sure where this information might be duplicated from. Location (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per O Fenian: the information is copied from other lists that are much better constructed and referenced. Location (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is nothing here not covered, better, elsewhere. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adequately covered by Timeline of Real Irish Republican Army actions, Chronology of Continuity Irish Republican Army actions and other related articles, where this information was copied from in the first place. O Fenian (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2010 (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.

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. Although the article is clearly in need of referencing, the consensus is to keep. I would recommend that some of the 'keep'ers perhaps try to find some reliable sources? If I get a chance later this week, I will try to look up some myself -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of world's largest roadside attractions

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

Article with very unclear topic, the places in question have little if no notability, as they are not the "world's largest" anything. Voyaging^(talk) 21:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The phenomenon of large objects as roadside attractions is clearly a notable one and needs to be addressed in some way on wikipedia. I think most if not all of these will be mentioned in local articles, so is quite a good idea to bring them all together in a list. Many indeed are the world's largest - the world's largest model of a guitar for example. I write as an Australian, as we are rather proud or perhaps sometimes bemused by the large objects that attract, or try to attract, tourists along our roads--Bduke (Discussion) 00:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Totally unsourced, which was pretty well accepted back in Wikipedia's old days, so I won't miss it if it's booted from here. However, it was and is a fine idea for an article topic. To the extent that something is listed in a published tour guide or another reliable, verifiable source as billing itself as the "world's largest _____", it would merit an entry on the list. I don't give a shit whether the world's largest ball of string or whatever would be notable enough for its own article-- some of these probably would be able to prove that they keep ending up in the newspaper on a regular basis or even editions of the Guinness book-- but I don't want to encourage people to make lots of individual articles about these dubious attractions. Mandsford 02:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It sorely lacks references, but that's a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I agree that this is a fine idea for an article topic, but verifiability is not optional. The article has had plenty of time to be made compliant with WP:V and nothing has been done about it. Per WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." In February 2009, an editor added {{citation needed}} tags to challenge every unsourced item, but they were promptly removed: [1]. Location (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It needs serious help, but the subject is notable. Hash789 (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename - Many (if not all) of these eccentric attractions are independently notable by our guidelines. As such, it seems only appropriate for us to comprehensively aggregate them in a way that is informative to our readers. — C M B J 00:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but turn it into one of those lists where every entry is a section, so more info can be included. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree keep it. Needs work but undeniably notable.AWHS (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep. The current name indicates a vague inclusion criteria and smacks of Original Research. Perhaps a more appropriate name would be List of claimed largest roadside attractions. Regardless, the topic is notable. --Pink Bull 20:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that we should drop the 'largest' word all together, because that's really the root of the problem here. Perhaps we could work to refine something like List of giant roadside attractions. — C M B J 20:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Removing "largest" and just leaving "giant" would make the inclusion criteria even more vague and would lead to the inclusion of all sorts of spammy non-notable attractions. --Pink Bull 22:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest monoliths in the world seems of relevance here. — C M B J 02:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and add sources. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2010 (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.

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 delete. majority being concerned about the value of the list JForget 14:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of goals scored by African teams at the FIFA World Cup

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

Per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOT#STATS Luxic (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Similar lists for other continents don't exist. I wonder if African nations at the FIFA World Cup falls into a similar band. 91.106.97.16 (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for indiscriminate information, nor is it The World Cup - The Complete History. Also, as stated above, other continents don't have such lists (although it'd be interesting to see how long the ones for Europe and South America would be). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and devoting an article to this subject certainly seems indiscriminate. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 15:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom, non-notable list. Giant Snowman 17:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while certainly an interseting list, it does not belong on wikipedia. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - I'm African and I compiled this list because it would be of interest to other African football fans. Football is very important in Africa, as is Africa's story at the biggest football tournament in the world. Would you raise the same opposition to the Wikipedia lists in other parts of the world e.g. List of top England international rugby union points scorers and try scorers or List of Washington RFC honors or List of Kinston baseball people? Look people, having some sense of cultural objectivity here! Different things are important to different people in different places. I'm not saying those lists should be deleted; quite the opposite - I think people in England, Washington, or Kinston find thoses lists suitably interesting. The Wikipedia is a valuable repository of information people can show to their kids and neighbours. (PS: The same arguments apply to the article African nations at the FIFA World Cup that I created at the same time as this list.) Now, I had hoped that an African list/article would inspire historians from other confederations to create corresponding lists/articles. I'm now compiling - as originally intended and due to the first (unsigned, initially) complaint - the corresponding article and list for Asian World Cup history. I'm up to 1962, and it's very tricky owing to countries like Turkey and Israel moving between Asia and Europe in qualifying. It would be good to get help on it once its first draft is ready. I wouldn't personally create Europe or South American articles since their history is basically the history of the World Cup. This effort was for the 'smaller' confederations. The preceeding comment was left by the article's creator, who - rather ironically, given one of her sentences - didn't sign it. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Ironic indeed. Apologies for following your non-signing example ;-) -Crabbylucy (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: you're completely missing the point. We're not proposing deletion on the concern that Africa is not notable (who would?!), instead because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Especially, when it comes to stats, which can easily be arranged in countless indiscriminate ways. We already have a list of FIFA World Cup goalscorers, and that's enough. No need to create six different lists, one for each confederation. By the way, if you really want to do something for the sake of African football fans, you might create/improve all the articles listed here. That would be way more helpful. — Luxic (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: I would be happy to agree with O
Delete. While I have no objection to having extensive coverage of the World Cup in Wikipedia, that does not mean that every possible way of analyzing the data from the World Cup needs to be a Wikipedia article. I would need to see some evidence that sports journalists consider "number of goals scored by a confederation in the World Cup" to be a meaningful statistic before I could support this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer. While I do understand the reason for the nomination, I believe this article is well constructed and offers value. I think the contents of this article should be transferred to the African nations at the FIFA World Cup article. I hate to see this great effort wasted. —Osa osa 5 (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, African nations at the FIFA World Cup might be deleted for basically the same reasons. I haven't nominated it yet only beacuse – as you pointed out – in a way it's sad to see such an effort wasted. — Luxic (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The information does already exist at List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers. As for the second article, that information too also exists at National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup#Results by confederation. 91.106.99.14 (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - First, the information on each goal at List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers is far less than in this list. Second, the compiled-confederation information available at National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup#Results by confederation is far, far less than in the article. Third, I think that transferring this list to the African nations at the FIFA World Cup article would be more than fine - I had originally intended that to be the case but the article was getting too long. Fourth, the list of articles that need to be made at Template:Football_in_Africa is all very - what's the word, cookie cutter?, but to say that only such articles should be written suppresses initiative - I'm sorry that my world view does not coincide with your world view. Fifth, would you folks make up your mind already? I'm over halfway through making the corresponding Asian article & list (see my Sandbox) and I'd like to know if it should be halted. All these condescending 'Oh we may only keep this list and article out of pity at best' and 'missing the point' remarks are very tiring, and I just want this over with. Thank you.-Crabbylucy (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let's put it this way. I think your work is really good; I honestly do. What I mean by missing the point is that you should put your efforts in another direction. Instead of having six different articles by confederation, don't you agree it would be better to use your skills and knowledge to improve the single World Cup articles? I mean, most of them (e.g. 1966, but many others too) are in awful shape, and the info available at African nations at the FIFA World Cup would fit perfectly in them. — Luxic (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for thinking that my work is good. But I do wish you'd try to see my point. No, I definitely do not think that improving the individual World Cup articles is in any way comparable to the articles in question. The two kinds of articles are orthogonal in interest and I simply do not understand why you don't see the difference. Culture clash? Philosophy clash? Horizontal vs Vertical clash? Now, I've read several of the individual World Cup articles (and linked to them) and modified the few of them where I've found additional information worth putting in. -Crabbylucy (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        In response to the original complaint, I have compiled the full list of Goals by Asian countries in the World Cup in my sandbox. Haven't double checked it yet. (And yes, the inclusion of Turkey's 1954 goals is certainly debatable.) I won't bother making a new article with it until this discussion is complete. Mind you, I fully expect the final answer to be "The history of minority confederations is not worth documenting separately and should be deleted in accordance with the historical principle that the majority always wins" or some variant thereof. (Note that 'minority' is used in a footballing context to refer to Europe and South America.) Thank you. -Crabbylucy (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I do see the difference. But the fact is that consesus seems to be for not having the World Cup covered by confederation. And I mean none of them; be it UEFA, CONMEBOL, CAF, AFC, CONCACAF or OFC.
        Anyway, bear in mind that this discussion is only about the list of African goalscorers, not the African nations at the FIFA World Cup, which – as I said before – has not yet been nominated for deletion. So, if you want to have a final answer about that, we should nominate it and see what people say. — Luxic (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Do what you will, you've clearly made your mind up already. I'm sorry that my cultural viewpoint does not fit within yours. As for consensus - you do realize who's voting here, right? That the people most likely to find this article informative live in countries where there is low Wikipedia usage and therefore wouldn't have heard of this article so soon, let alone know how wikipedia works or voted on this page? Or maybe that's your point - because most Wikipedia users don't live in Africa, it's not important that articles of interest to them be kept alive. I've offered counterarguments to every argument one of you proposed, and yet... You really don't get it, do you? I don't know why I'm surprised. I hope you've put notices of deletion for the other articles I listed at the start, and for so many other articles of interest to people solely within one country (or one region thereof) with high Wikipedia usage. I thought the Wikipedia encouraged diversity. Apparently not. Very well, I'll slink off now. I give up. Pat yourself on the back, you've won. I hope you're happy now. I don't plan to return to this discussion, this page, or updating these articles, or those in my sandbox, ever again. Goodbye.-Crabbylucy (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --MicroX (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should have a look at WP:POLL. — Luxic (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sandman888 (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2010 (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.

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. T. Canens (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese administrative divisions by population

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

Unsourced,OR BsBsBs (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese city population entries are completely unsourced. The footnotes 1-5 do not point to sources, but to explanations of the type of the administrative region. The comparison entries are all unsourced except for India. Comparisons with other regions may be viewed as Original Research.-- BsBsBs (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: If an article has WP:V issues, that's what template tags are for. An AfD is out of the question, especially since you have only added the disputed, unreferenced and OR tags 7 minutes before nominating the AfD. This is not what an AfD is for. I would also like to mention WP:SOFIXIT - certainly if you are concerned about the welfare of an article, you'd be bold enough to fix it yourself? The same amount of effort following the three steps to AfD could have been made looking up statistics. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who is looking after the welfare of Beijing, I can assure you that

it is not easy to obtain up-to-date population numbers in China
once you have them, they are contentious (there was an edit war over Beijing's official population number of 22 million - pls compare to the number in this list)

I am all for this list, but to stay alive, it must be sourced. Thank you for the invitation, but maintaining it timely and correctly is beyond my capacities. The assertion that "the same amount of effort following the three steps to AfD could have been made looking up statistics" is patently wrong. Try it on a few major provinces. If it's so easy, why isn't there a single reference? -- BsBsBs (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe all nations have official websites that list their census bureau's information on it. Some information is listed on the American government's Census bureau's website. www.census.gov Shouldn't be difficult to find if any of the information is sincerely in doubt. I don't see any reason to have the section "Comparable country (country rank worldwide)". Why mention what nation or state has the same population of that area? I don't see as how that helps anyone. Dream Focus 03:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try it. Sourced in China. -- BsBsBs (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Just noticed a little something. Quote: "The footnotes 1-5 do not point to sources" - precisely. They are notes, not references. The article specifically states that. I don't see anything "wrong" with that. Many WP:FA also contain notes. They are used to clarify certain things that some readers might not understand, without completely ruining the format of the body article. Sources, on the other hand, are given as external links, because as the figures change each year, so does the page URL. I also don't see why linking to the main page of the Bureau of Statistics is "wrong". Linking to the direct page can lead to link rot. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 04:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring. Where are the sources? Next time I write that someone killed someone, I provide the main page of the National Enquirer and say look for yourself, there might be link rot? -- BsBsBs (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment I have fixed the problem with footnotes not being separated from references. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I deleted all the nation comparison stuff, which got the nominator all worked up about OR and seems rather arbitrary to me. Yoenit (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It may seem arbitrary to you and me, but editors have been accused of Original Research in much less obvious cases. The fact that the list is unreferenced remains. I have made three good faith edits for Chongqing, Beijing, and Shanghai. Sorry, the numbers for Chongqing and Beijing are different than what was in the list, but now they are properly referenced. The other numbers should be properly referenced likewise. I happen to follow Chongqing, Beijing and Shanghai, so I have those numbers. As two out of three numbers were wrong, I expect further changes as this list is properly referenced. If it's not, all unreferenced data can be deleted. It is now unlikely that the whole page will be deleted. However, all unreferenced data can be deleted at any time. (Caution: Even after everything is properly referenced, giving a ranking could attract accusations of WP:OR on the grounds of "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." I don't like it, but them's the rules.) -- BsBsBs (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't even see the rank until now. A rather useless column as you can use the autosort function to sort the table on population size, so I removed it. If you feel the need to remove all numbers you can not get a reliable source for, please do so. It would leave the list utterly gutted for now, but eventually lead to improvement. Yoenit (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a valid topic. If there is any uncertainty or dispute as to the numbers for a particular area, this should be noted and explained in the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: the article has been sourced by a number of editors since the AfD was nominated. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:21, 27 June 2010 (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.

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 delete. Although the arguments in favour of keeping this article make some valid points, the consensus seems to be that this list is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants

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

This list has WP:NOTDIR issues, because it is an non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. There's no coverage of superhuman "characters who can manipulate plants" in reliable sources: [2]. Claritas § 18:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The real question here is how do we limit the characters listed on the list. Do we limit the lists to characters just characters with stand-alone articles that assert the character's notability independently of the works they are form? (The position I would naturally default to.) Do we also include characters that have an entry on a character list? Or some other inclusion critical. Because including all fictional characters who can manipulate plants is just too abstract of an inclusion criteria to be suitable for a stand-alone list without running afoul of WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. The base subject, Plant manipulation in fiction, isn't notable and does not have an article. So the list has to explain why fictional characters who can manipulate plants are notable instead of just being random trivia. —Farix (t | c) 22:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with how major or notable the character in the story then. If a character's plant manipulation is a major factor in the story for example that would be worthy of inclusion or if the character is notable enough itself. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Importance in a work of fiction is too arbitrary of a standard, based entirely an editor's personal opinion or analyst, and usually unverifiable. —Farix (t | c) 00:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 02:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 02:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I dispute the status of this as cross-categorization (after all, plant manipulation is a "real", if lame, fictional superpower), I still don't see any good reason this is a list rather than just a category. Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly valid list article. Any character featured in a notable work should be listed, not just those with their own articles. It shows how often notable media uses this in it. All information is confirmed in the primary source. List articles don't need coverage in reviews somewhere. Dream Focus 03:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If every character is included, then the list would definitely violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. This list may be salvageable as a navigational list, but you have to draw a very clear line on what to included. —Farix (t | c) 11:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete this might be more appropriate as a category. This list doesn't provide much more than the characters' names. Their source of power is an in-universe detail and doesn't seem appropriate for organizational purposes. The publisher/medium information can just as easily be viewed at individual articles. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, fails WP:NOTDIR which reads People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. Fictional characters that manipulate plants are not a culturally significant phenomenon for our purposes unless there is adequate sourcing to prove it, which I cannot find. Them From Space 15:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize. List brings little to the table. --Gwern (contribs) 19:55 22 June 2010 (GMT)

The list shows what series they are from. A category wouldn't do that. Easier to navigate this way. Dream Focus 20:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lordy, could there ever be a more arbitrary collection of information? wikia:list exists for this cruft, and Dream Focus is an administrator there so should be more than happy to oblige in transwikiing it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, this applies to several (possibly all) of the other superhero lists in this article's see also section. These were created historically when the categories were deleted. Any chance they can be co-nominated? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I generally dislike mass nominations except in uncontroversial circumstances, because they don't allow for the merits of each individual list/article to be taken into account. If this AFD closes as delete or categorise, I'll nominate them too. Feel free to do so yourself, if you'd like to speed the process up. Claritas § 12:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has an objective inclusion criteria, and is not too broad or narrow. I don't agree that this is unreasonable cross-categorization, since someone with plant manipulation abilities would necessarily be a fictional character. As with any other list, content needs to be limited to that which is verifiable. Marasmusine (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does it have "objective inclusion criteria"? The majority of the entries are utterly unrelated to one another, as much as if they were grouped by eye colour. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gardening is a form of "plant manipulation", so your claim that only fictional characters can "manipulate plants" is hardly correct..Claritas § 15:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for the publication primary research (which is what this list is), by which I mean it is not place for compiling entirely original and novel standalone lists articles that have not been published in the real world. Lists that are newly created should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that that this list topic is verifiable, and not merely the editor's own research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course. <;)>But first merge with List of fictional plants who can manipulate fictional characters, which should be started with Audrey II.</;)> Oh, and it's been 'rescued' — wikia:list:List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Feed me, Seymour!

Delete a coatrack of primary research that violates WP:OR... don't just make up categories and then start hanging examples in there... non encyclopedic cross category which goes against WP:NOTDIR Arskwad (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic list based on trivial intersection. While not per se OR, it would be hard to keep it out of this list since the concept of "plant manipulation" is not well defined and is treated differently in different fictional works. However, even if well defined and sourced the list would still be a directory based on a trivial intersection, some which Wikipedia does not include. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if only to counter the illogical arguments above. IINFO doesn't apply, and this is NOT a trivial intersection. A trivial intersection is things like "financiers who parachute" where the two categorizations are unrelated--this case is not that. Likewise, any list that can have articulable inclusion criteria isn't IINFO, because it is, by definition, discriminate. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2010 (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.

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 no consensus. Moving/merging/splitting can all be discussed on the talk page (or even better, done WP:BOLDly). T. Canens (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of cinemas in Thailand

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

Per WP:IINFO, WP:SALAT and WP:NOTDIR, this list is not encyclopaedic. Will never meet a reasonable level of completion, and sets precedent for even less manageable lists such as List of cinemas in California. Claritas § 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't suppose there's a vote called "Rename the article and remove what it was originally about". I think that this would work as a non-list article, based on the content that was added after it started as a directory of cinemas. Remove the list and rename it. The best part of this article is the information other than the list, which describes the culture associated with going to the cinema in Thailand. I'm astounded that the before a film, "the audience must stand for the 'Royal Anthem', which is accompanied by a montage of images of King Bhumibol Adulyadej." but it's sourced [3]. Americans are used to standing for the national anthem prior to a sports event, but it's not part of going to a movie. While I can't see having a list of cinemas for any nation, there is some good stuff here that should be carried over to a different article. Mandsford 23:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that there's some encyclopaedic content here too - it might be appropriate to copy it to userspace and then create an article called Cinemas in Thailand based on it. This simply doesn't work as a list, which was why I nominated. Claritas § 11:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why have the intermediate step of copying to userspace rather than simply renaming it (or, as we stupidly call it so that nobody understands what's going on, "moving" it) to that title and allowing the wiki editing process to improve it? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, per Paul, some of the content concerning individual cinemas could also be split. Claritas § 13:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge non-list content to Cinema of Thailand and split content about notable chains/cinemas (i.e. almost all, IMO) into their own articles, if they don't exist yet. I agree in principle with Mandsford's above comments. Redirect likely needed for attribution purposes. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2010 (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.

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 all. T. Canens (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of English Electoral Wards by Constituency

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Replicates near-verbatim SI 2007/1681. Wereon (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus subsets of the above:

The Welsh equivalent:

And two redirects:

I can see that this is potentially useful, and has been collated in an extremely organized way - it doens't seem the least bit indiscriminate. What is the exact problem with these articles existing in Wikipedia? At the very least they should have a place in some Wikimedia project or another, if they are not encyclopedic could they be rehomed e.g. in Wikisource? TheGrappler (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think Wikisource accepts material under Crown Copyright. Besides, is reproducing secondary legislation really what any Wikimedia project is for, when HMSO / OPSI already do it? Wereon (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What makes you think that this material is under Crown Copyright? These are just plain facts, no creativity seems to have been used even in the ordering of the facts. I think the source material is therefore ineligible for Copyright; besides which, it should be possible to wikify these pages to "add value" to them. The fact these improvements haven't happened yet doesn't seem a good reason to delete. As for whether any Wikimedia project is "for" reproducing information available anywhere else, the answer is a big fat yes, surely? The facts contained in Wikipedia are all from somewhere else (due to the rule against no original research); Wikisource contains lots of information straight from other sources as does Commons. TheGrappler (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, publications that contain only facts are not copyrightable? SnottyWong talk 01:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, no, they are not. You can sell your own phone book by taking the phone company's and copying all the info, at least in the U.S.. See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Certainly the articles are not perfect at present. But there are advantages in having wikified articles in addition to the source documents; it is clearer to link from one article to a specific section of one of the above articles (and backlink to the relevant constituency, placename etc) than it is to link only to a less structured document on an external website. The article does not seem to breach the policies listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion (though the list is not intended to be exhaustive). More specifically, it is not clear that the articles are "indiscriminate" in the sense described at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, since they are ordered and wikified in an accurate and potentially useful way. Perhaps it would be sufficient to merge the county articles into just four articles (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales – corresponding to the four boundary commissions), so as to balance the advantages of wikification against the disadvantages of duplicated and scattered content. — Richardguk (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list of relevant wards would be a welcome addition to the individual constituency articles, but I'm not sure what the value is of listing them all by country or county in such a way. Wereon (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Suppose someone is interested not in which wards comprise a known constituency, but in which constituency each ward in a district is allocated to. More generally still, suppose someone wants an idea of the constituency to which each ward in a certain area is allocated (regardless of council boundaries). There is no perfect solution, but listing the data on one page makes it easier for the reader to gather information more flexibly than if it is only scattered across many articles or on an external site, allowing wikilinks to be used effectively. — Richardguk (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This sounds entirely reasonable to me. TheGrappler (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information provided is not indiscriminate. The fact that it has a good, reliable source is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In a mass nomination, it's poor strategy to nominate the best of the articles first, and I think it will prove to have been "a lot of work for nothing". Many of the "afterthoughts" are actually duplicates of the information in List of English Electoral Wards by Constituency, except for (List of Welsh Electoral Wards by Constituency) so I see no reason to keep anything that duplicates info on a larger list. Rather than confusing the matter with a "keep this one, delete that one and that one and that one, but keep the next one" vote, I'll just leave the question of merger to others. Mandsford 17:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know that, as the author, I am slightly impartial, but I feel that these articles are good reference guides and are useful. I also put a lot of hard work into them and would hate to see my work deleted. 07bargem (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource. There is nothing in these articles which doesn't appear verbatim somewhere on this site. SnottyWong talk 01:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The only issue I have with this article is that this will be a bugger to maintain. I wonder if the information would be better contained in articles like List of Parliamentary constituencies in Cleveland, where the people who maintain the pages are likely to be clued up on boundary changes. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing indiscriminate here.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. The information is directly copied from here. The material is under copyright. Nuttah (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*keep - useful and cited. The content is imo not a copyright violation, the copyright notice is here http://www.opsi.gov.uk/about/copyright-notice.htm it looks to me like they are actively encouraging reprinting and requesting hyperlinks to be created to their site which we have done in our article. Off2riorob (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"…provided it is reproduced accurately…" — it may be accurate at the moment, but how can we ensure it stays accurate? Full edit protection?? Qwfp (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we will try in good faith but I see your point. I am far from expert in copyright. User:Moonriddengirl is a good person to ask. Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be, unfortunately. The Crown Copyright exemption is that all material can be copied WITHOUT CHANGE. The nature of Wikipedia makes that impossible to guarantee. Nuttah (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting that copyright notice in full:

"The Crown copyright protected material (other than the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. The permission to reproduce Crown protected material does not extend to any material on this site which is identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned. OPSI encourages users to establish hypertext links to this site." — OPSI Crown copyright notice (emphasis added)

Wikipedia policy implications: So long as due attribution is given and the article is created accurately with a link to the source, we can't limit ourselves by the hypothetical actions of future vandals, which would in any event be subject to correction by other editors and be made evident by examining the history page or comparing with the source, to which we link.

After all, a vandal can insert text from any copyright publication on almost any page and immediately cause a copyright breach. This real risk does not cause us to delete every page of the encyclopedia! Instead, we maintain the articles and respond to informal and formal feedback as best we can.

Practical implications: I'm sure all of us here want Wikipedia articles to be accurate. If someone notices an inaccuracy subsequently introduced, how likely is it the Crown would sue Wikipedia (or the miscreant editor)? Frankly, if the Crown even bothered to complain, we should be grateful for them taking an interest, but it's inconceivable that they would object in principle to an article that Wikified the data contained in the statutory instrument.

— Richardguk (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm afraid that Crown copyright is not permissible on Wikipedia. :/ As is noted at WP:C and Wikimedia:Terms of Use, our content must be licensed compatibly with WP:CC-By-SA, which permits modification (obviously, public domain is acceptable). That Crown copyright mandate forbidding modification makes it incompatible, so it must be used in accordance with WP:NFC, which forbids extensive quotation. The real question, though, is whether this material is copyrightable under the US law that governs Wikipedia. While some countries recognize "sweat of the brow", U.S. copyright law requires creativity. The requirement here is minimal (most content easily passes the threshold), but lists that are simply straightforward and obvious compilations of facts are not creative. (As with Feist v. Rural.) I'm not sure here. When the Nielsen Company wrote to the Wikimedia Foundation to complain that we were reproducing their lists of U.S. television markets, our attorney removed the content (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive170#Nielson DMCA Takedown). Except in the case of an official takedown request (which in spite of the language bandied at this discussion this was not; note that Mike said, "Wikimedia Foundation has not received a DMCA takedown notice"), he does not do that in situations without merit. (He didn't automatically comply with the American Psychiatric Association wrote us.) I would be inclined to presume that there is no creativity in the content, but the Nielsen market precedent makes that a bit complicated. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I've asked Mike. Since there are 13 articles involved here, best to find out if copyright concerns are a factor. I'll update if he has an opportunity to respond to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for the advice, which is clearly an informed and thoughtful contribution, but I'm puzzled by the logic:

There seems to be an assumption that "accuracy" precludes "modification". The Crown copyright waiver (and para 12b of the relevant guidance) requires accuracy, but there is no "Crown copyright mandate forbidding modification". Modification in the articles consists only of wikilinking, annotating and layout changes.
Feist implies that facts per se are not copyrightable in US law. The article does not reproduce the other (creative and presentational) aspects. Nor are the statutory instruments the only authoritative source of the data (Boundary Commission reports, draft statutory instruments and National Statistics lists contain the same data in different formats, though are also Crown copyright).
The lists can also be derived from OS OpenData datasets which are licensed to be compatible with CC-BY 3.0. (Admittedly this is not applicable to most Crown publications at present, but does happen to apply to the content being discussed here.)
Unlike Nielsen, the Crown is not seeking to exploit its website content commercially, nor is it objecting to the current articles or similar instances. Clearly the Crown does not want us to mislead, but nor do we. If the content ceases to be accurate, the obvious remedy is to correct the content, not to pre-emptively delete articles.

I can see that the articles could be criticised for duplicating information; that's a plausible view to be balanced against the advantages of having the data listed together and wikified, hence the tentativeness of my Weak keep. But the legal point seems a red herring.

— Richardguk (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content on Wikipedia must be licensed compatibly with Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. This license does not guarantee that the material will remain accurate; our reusers may do whatever they wish with it, even if they wish to deliberately mess it up. They may modify it in any way. Per our copyright policy and Terms of Use (both linked above), we can't accept content that is licensed more restrictively than that even if we should agree that accuracy is a good idea. (For background, see this 2002 pronouncement by User:Jimbo Wales. Plus there are plenty of conversations about it in Wiki.) The only question here is whether there is sufficient creativity in the content for Crown copyright to apply. I am inclined to doubt it, but as I said I've asked our attorney. Pending his answer, further discussion of the copyright question seems unnecessary, unless he tells us to settle it in house. If he says it is uncreative, there is no concern. If he says it is protected expression, it will be removed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mike has kindly offered quick response; copyright concerns are off the table. The lists can and should be judged on other factors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this. It's certainly complicated, but thanks for obtaining such clear and swift advice. — Richardguk (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no consensus to delete. Copyright concern is inchoate at best.--Milowent (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki to Wikisource - I struck my comment after Moonriddengirl's comment. There are doubts as to the status of such content and for the limited value of the content I don't under the circumstances support Keeping it. Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles were moved to Wikisource, reproducing the statutory instruments verbatim, wouldn't it be harder to link to it from relevant articles on English Wikipedia, and vice versa, and harder to maintain those links? We don't need to reproduce the source unchanged, as it's already online at the official website; but by using the content here, we can enhance it with internal wikilinks. — Richardguk (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also think that under the circumstances and the no consensus that is present that as there is no hurry and relisting to get wider community comment would be a fair request. Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't hurt.--Milowent (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 20:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"If the articles were moved to Wikisource, reproducing the statutory instruments verbatim, wouldn't it be harder to link to it from relevant articles on English Wikipedia, and vice versa, and harder to maintain those links? We don't need to reproduce the source unchanged, as it's already online at the official website; but by using the content here, we can enhance it with internal wikilinks."

It looks pretty verbatim to me, as you say...it is already online...to me this content in an external link, through wikisource or see also or wherever but our hosting it verbatim here when it is already hosted and when there are issues with copyright is not part of the remit ot the project. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are not "issues with copyright". Moonriddengirl consulted an authoritative source and reported above (20:19, 21 June 2010) that "copyright concerns are off the table. The lists can and should be judged on other factors." — Richardguk (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I don't see any major problems - organised, factual, and no doubt useful to those who study such things. I note the copyright issues; however, facts cannot be copyrighted, of course, only creative writing. TerriersFan (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTREPOSITORY It's a direct copy of material available elsewhere on the net, thus it should be at most on Wikisource per the guidelines.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re NOTDIR: none of the seven cases listed there seem to apply; the information is lengthy but specific not indiscriminate. Conversely, the articles do not contradict anything at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists.

Re NOTREPOSITORY: none of the four cases apply. The articles are not "original, unmodified wording", they comprise the relevant facts rearranged and reformatted with wikilinks, which is what makes them useful as articles on enwiki, and would make them ineligible for Wikisource.

— Richardguk (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- Many consistutency articles are weak on the description of the boundaries. Information on the local govenrment wards of which each consists is useful and should be added to those articles. However, I would be happier if the constituencies were grouped by District Council, so that it was clear which council the ward elected a councillor for. WP has many list articles, and this is just another. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One option would be to reformat the lists into a sortable table, so that readers can choose to view the list either in constituency order or in local authority order. This could also allow areas to be grouped by county or ceremonial county. — Richardguk (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting idea. The main list is 160kb long. Would sorting be practical, or might it take ages? I don't think there should be two copies of the info as this will be difficult to maintain. How about transcluding each of the sub-lists into the main list? Qwfp (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go, at User:Richardguk/List of United Kingdom electoral wards by constituency. See note below for some initial thoughts. — Richardguk (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem I can see is that come Local Authorities are covered by more than one constituency, so the reader wouldn't get a list by Local Authority. 07bargem (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reluctant Delete~~, useful information and a valid list, unfortunately the crown copyright requirements are incompatible with our licensing, which allows the work to be further altered. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Wikimedia's chief lawyer has advised that copyright is not a problem in this case (via Moonriddengirl, above). Sorry for the emphasis, but this seems to be repeatedly being overlooked. So can we please consider this matter on its own merits?

— Richardguk (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, he has. I trust that whatever admin closes this will take that into account when weighing "delete for licensing issue" arguments. There is insufficient creativity in these lists for copyright to convey under the U.S. law that governs us. (Closing admin: if you want more details about my e-mails with Mike, please feel free to e-mail me.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Transwiki or Delete. This is essentially directory information which should have a home somewhere but not on Wikipedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've created a prototype of an alternative layout using sortable wikitables: User:Richardguk/List of United Kingdom electoral wards by constituency. It's a hefty 500KB page, but that includes all four parts of the UK so could be split.
The list includes official ward codes to distinguish between areas of the same name where ward boundaries have changed.
As this is only a prototype, I've not included county or review area details. Also, the constituencies are listed in the order published and would need re-sorting so that the default ordering makes more sense without needing to click the header first.
— Richardguk (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two factors to consider here. The first is the status of Crown Copyright on Wikipedia (a matter on which, I've said several times, Wikipedia needs clear guidelines that it doesn't currently have). I'm pleased to see from Mike Godwin's remarks above that concerns about copyright may safely be disregarded in this particular case and we need only consider the benefits to the encyclopaedia.
The second factor is whether this is an indiscriminate collection of information. My position is that it isn't. The matter is clearly explained in the first pillar:- Wikipedia is not just an encyclopaedia. It's also a gazetteer, and gazetteers need content that organises material for navigation. So for example, paper gazetteer would have a contents and an index page. Wikipedia lacks those but we have categories, lists and navigational templates that ought to serve their function instead. The rule that governs these is WP:CLN. And over and above the considerations of WP:CLN, there's a secondary factor: this material also supports and clarifies the UK's political structure. In short, I can see a variety of reasons why this material is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but a highly focused and relevant one and I'd expect to find decent coverage of this on Wikipedia. Richardguk's version looks suitable for the moment, though in a perfect world we'd have a clickable interactive map.—S Marshall T/C 23:09, 28 June 2010 (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.

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese administrative divisions by population}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non Winter storms of 2004–2007}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional New Zealanders}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cinemas in Thailand}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English Electoral Wards by Constituency}}