Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Basketball League (Australia) venues


 * 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The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 06:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

List of National Basketball League (Australia) venues
Prod tag removed with the explanation: "possible candidate for Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight". I don't believe that supercedes the official policy regarding lists at WP:NOT. This needs a WP:HEY standard of improvement, right now it's listcruft. User:Kappa has been extremely busy removing prods this evening...  Dei zio  01:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Withdraw, list has now been significantly improved, hats off to Jcuk for making it happen.  Dei zio  21:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, although it has room for improvement, this list already assists with the organisation of articles, and aids the creation of new ones. Also it seems pretty rude to slap a prod tag on an article when it's a candidate for collaboration. Kappa 01:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The amount of listcruft that keeps appearing is discouraging. Hirudo 01:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and use a template instead, which is normal for this sort of thing. Calsicol 02:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The fact that it is a candidate for collaboration does not mean it has to be kept, although I note that it has two supporters only and two others have suggested that it would not be good choice. Use a template as suggested above or put the list in a broader article. --Bduke 05:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, add location & team information (which cannot be sensibly included in a template). AfD is not cleanup and this does not violate any aspect of WP:NOT that I can see.  However, as a believer in list-category synergy, I would prefer that this article be rebuilt into a simple List of basketball venues in Australia, a la Category:Basketball venues in Australia.  -- Visviva 06:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT for "Mere collections of internal links", except for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles (offical policy), with structured lists defined as "lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists". Nobody is suggesting that a list of these venues should not be maintained somewhere on WP, but it's not suitable for a stand-alone list with no context or information, which is the job of a category or template.  Dei zio  15:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - it could grow into a decent article, or eventually be merged somewhere. At the moment it should be a category or a template. But don't give up on it yet. - Richardcavell 12:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or maybe merge into the league page. Its informative, but there are better ways to go about it... (categories, templates, etc) ccwaters 12:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Lists are not redundant with categories or templates; they can hold more information than either -- also, of course, lists can (and should) contain links to articles that have not yet been created, which categories cannot. -- Visviva 12:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable but needs work. -- Synapse 14:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, listcruft. --Ter e nce Ong 14:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and transfer to a template per Calsicol. BoojiBoy 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Visviva, Wikipedia itself supports lists

(Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. Like categories, lists can be used for keeping track of changes in the listed pages, using the Related Changes feature. Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of pages from it, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available.) , so why do individual editors think they have to remove an article just because it IS a list?? Also there is a precedent for this sort of thing at List of Premier League stadiums, for example. Jcuk 20:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * List of Premier League stadiums contains information about the home team, city, capacity and date built as well as a trivia section. It's something for this list to aspire to, sure, but by no means can that be considered to set a precedent for a list such as this simply because they are both about sports stadiums. I don't feel that we should remove lists, I feel we should adhere to the offical policy which dictates what Wikipedia is not.  Dei zio  00:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This list now contains much the same information as List of Premier League Stadiums Jcuk 19:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as a list considered useful by a large category of users. I don't see any reason to delete useful lists of information. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well done to User Kappa for removing the prod tag. This should never have been tagged as prod. Capitalistroadster 00:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like useful information.  Perhaps more info would make it better. Chart123 01:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 00:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable and the potential to be very informative.--Cini 09:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep a list of notable places which are interrelated.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 00:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep complete lists of items for which there are or should be articles. There is no way for a reader to determine whether a category is complete. Also as noted above, a list can contain more information. --Scott Davis Talk 06:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  01:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  01:22, 28 April 2006 (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.