Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of King George V Playing Fields (County Antrim)


 * 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, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

List of King George V Playing Fields (County Antrim)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Pointless list, which contains only one item. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions.   — Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as underpopulated "list" containing only one non-notable playing fields. Perhaps List of King George V Playing Fields (County Down) should be added to the nomination as it is the same playing fields? EJF (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – I would typically say merge into the main article King George's Fields. However, I believe the list can be a valued addition, for reference reasons (likewise, I believe it would add to much content to the main piece), as a separate article from the main piece. In addition, I would consolidate all the fields into one list.  With regards to the notation that the fields are un-notable, I would disagree.   Though one field may be un-notable 471 fields are not and supported by this Google News search . Thanks.  ShoesssS Talk 16:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Consolidate the list as recommended above. List needs to be here, but the article shouldn't be kept for a table with one entry. Waste of valuable space.  D u s t i complain/compliment 16:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Shoessss. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The argument for deletion is surprising, because the list is flagged as an incomplete list.  The argument about space occupied is interesting, but WP keeps archives on the servers anyway as part of the functionality of Mediawiki software.  King George's Fields are themselves significant and important (and verifiable and notable), and the list, albeit incomplete, is part of an attempt to catalogue this enormous memorial into local chunks.  If the consensus eventually comes to a deletion the Northern Ireland lists should be merged into a list for Northern Ireland (which requires creation).  The objective is to keep the information, even if it is desired to consolidate it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is indeed flagged as an incomplete list, but it actually appears to be complete: there were only 7 such fields in Northern Ireland, and there's not much point in splitting that list of 7 fields into 5 or 6 sub-lists. If there is as yet no Northern Ireland list, the simplest solution would probably to rename this article as List of King George V Playing Fields (County Antrim), and merge any other by-county lists into it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – I would like to see just one consolidated List of King George V Playing Fields without the (County Antrim) or (County Down). Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 21:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – I would like to see just one consolidated List of King George V Playing Fields without the (County Antrim) or (County Down). Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 21:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. On the basis that there are similar lists for all the other counties in which there are KG Fields, I'd say keep, but given that the main article says there are only seven fields of this type in the whole of Northern Ireland, perhaps a merger of all the N.I. KGF lists into one list would be in order. In other words, pretty similar to what BHG said. Grutness...wha?  02:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Can be expanded on. Every list started out as a newbie at one point or another. Gary King ( talk )  20:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply I think you have missed the point here, which is that it appears that there are no more KG fields to add to this list. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, should have worded it better. Would be better to be consolidated with the other lists, per above. Gary King ( talk )  21:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


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