Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of General Motors factories (detailed)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  13:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

List of General Motors factories (detailed)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I don't think we need List of General Motors factories and List of General Motors factories (detailed), just agree on what level of detail appropriate for the main list and stick to that. Having a proliferation of lists for the exact same subject but with different levels of detail is not helpful IMO, it's just a case of Content forking. Fram (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Transportation, Lists,  and United States of America. Fram (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Ironically, this appears to be around the same length as List of General Motors factories. This is an unneeded fork of another list which is already way too long. This list appears to have been created in response to efforts to trim excessive detail from the main list. The extreme level of detail that was removed shouldn't be in the encyclopedia anywhere, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Unneeded content fork. There isn't anything beneficial about having this list that the main list doesn't already provide. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Maybe it wouldn't be necessary to have 2 versions of the list if some people were more respectful of others edits. Unfortunately, there are some "editors" around who have made it their job to troll and harass others on the sole basis of invented reasons. So, in the interest of maintaining peace, I felt it was better to have 2 editions: one abridged and one more detailed. Those that prefer abridged can use that page. Those that prefer detailed can use this page. I don't see anything wrong with that. Different strokes for different folks. Everyone is satisfied. Nobody and nothing is hurt because of it. Peace is maintained. Seems like a win-win all around. And, as mentioned, it's about the same length anyway even with the additional details. And it is beneficial to be able to see what was made where all on one page. It's a lot easier than going to each individual factory's page. This is a "one-stop shop" for information on GM factories. For example, you can search the page for a particular vehicle model and see all the places where it was built and at the same time, also see what else was built in that same factory along with some information on each plant. You would not be able to easily do that anywhere else. This may not interest some people but that's fine. Not every wikipedia page must be of interest to every person in the whole world. Different people have different interests. Nothing wrong with that. Let's try to be more tolerant of one another and not be so quick to tear everyone else down.--JustTheFacts33 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a "one-stop shop" for information on GM factories. No, this is an encyclopedia. It is not a General Motors factory fanpage.
 * Unfortunately, there are some "editors" around who have made it their job to troll and harass others on the sole basis of invented reasons. I'm sorry you're offended by others who are following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, even if you think they don't apply to you. You don't get to say "Let's try to be more tolerant of one another" literally right after making personal attacks towards others. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misunderstood me so please allow me to clarify: 1. I'm sorry if you thought the trolling and harassing comment was directed toward you Trainsandotherthings but it was not. I didn't identify who it was aimed at in the interest of "not naming names" and trying to not escalate any further. That doesn't mean it's aimed at everyone. 2. What you are identifying as "personal attacks" is in actuality only self-defense. People don't get to attack others and then hide behind "policies" as a cover. There are some people around who seem to do that here. As in the physical world, a person has a right to self-defense in the digital world as well. 3. "This is a "one-stop shop" for information on GM factories." This never referred to wikipedia as a whole, only this particular page. And you're right - this is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is supposed to provide factual, detailed information on many different topics. This page meets that criteria. It is not intended to be a "fanpage" as you put it. I did not put in opinions, only facts. And there is no fawning over anything as a fan might do. 4. The concept here of an abridged page and a detailed page on the same topic has precedent. Encyclopædia Britannica was arranged under precisely this concept. The Micropædia set of volumes had shorter, less detailed articles while the Macropædia set of volumes had longer, more in depth articles for those that wanted to go in more detail. And Encyclopædia Britannica predates wikipedia by a long way. And, yes, it was an encyclopedia. I encourage all not familiar with this encyclopedia and this concept to learn more about it. JustTheFacts33 (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:POVFORK. POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with policy: all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. We are not Brittanica, and operate quite differently, we have no need for a Macro and Micropedia considering we have nearly unlimited ability to store articles and do not need to worry about fitting everything in physical books (this is discussed at WP:DETAIL). You and other editors need to come to a consensus at the original list regarding how much detail is appropriate; you can't just create your own version filled with excessive detail. Many of the factories are likely notable themselves, and that is where significant detail should go. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "we have nearly unlimited ability to store articles and do not need to worry about fitting everything in physical books". If this is the case, and I do believe that it is, then why do some people keep acting like there is only limited space and if there is, in their view, too much detail, then wikipedia will run out of room or something like that? If there is nearly unlimited space, as you just stated, then it shouldn't be an issue how much detail there is on a given page. As always, those who are not interested don't have to read what they are not interested in. However, just because some people don't find it interesting does not mean that no people find it interesting. Bear in mind also that not every wikipedia reader is going to comment on a certain page's talk page so when a handful of opinions are stated, that is not necessarily a true measure of the opinions of every reader of that given page. JustTheFacts33 (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is nearly unlimited space, as you just stated, then it shouldn't be an issue how much detail there is on a given page. - That is in direct conflict with the policy WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which states: A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. I think TAOT was saying that we're not Britannica not because of any size limitations, but because we typically don't have both simple and detailed articles on Wikipedia. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with it being or not being interesting, it literally violates policy in multiple ways. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The reason for this content fork is this discussion that did not go the author's way. Making a second list does not change consensus. All of that excess detail belongs on the pages for individual facilities. --Sable232 (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is an unnecessary content fork of List of General Motors factories, which seems to have been split specifically for the purpose of retaining excessive details. I would have !voted to redirect the detailed list to the simpler list, but it turns out that the simpler list already had a lot of unnecessary detail, and the removal of said detail is what prompted the creation of the detailed list. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone else. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - A "one stop shop" is missing the point of a list and an encyclopedia. A list is a summary, not a dumping ground for any and all related info.  You are more than welcome to move that info to the pages for each line item on the list (i.e., each factory) if it (and the factory itself) is notable and verifiable enough for that page.  Otherwise, you should find a different website or create your own if you want it all in one location. --Vossanova o&lt; 21:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.