Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Oxfordshire towns by population


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Oxfordshire towns by population

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

An article which is never updated is not useful to an encyclopedia, and can mislead users. Also the towns populations are included in all of the pages articles, so the table is a little pointless. Dzhugashvili (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It might be updated, and anyway the article is a useful central location to compare populations per towns — we've got tons of them for other parts of the world. The only thing this article really needs is a source to demonstrate the date for these populations and to prove their reliability.  Nyttend (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I am unaware of the guideline that requires articles to be updated regularly lest they be deleted. Where can I find such a guideline?  Re sourcing.  Assuming that each article on towns in the list is accurate and sourced, then a source on the subject of List of Oxfordshire towns by population is not required.  That said, I agree with Nyttend that a general source relative to the population statistics of Oxfordshire or England for that matter would be useful.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "I am unaware of the guideline that requires articles to be updated regularly lest they be deleted. Where can I find such a guideline? " Oh, how condescending... My point was that the article was last updated on 14, November 2006, so the article is outdated by almost 2 years, and was given an update tag over a month ago, and hasn't received a single useful edit since, so it does not benefit an encyclopedia in any way, which is the important thing, right? Dzhugashvili (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment My point was merely this. Deletion debates ought to be debates related to the application of WP policies and guidelines, not on reasons ramdomly introduced by editors who have a POV.  If there are errors in the article, correct them or at least call attention too them.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Policies Well, if we wish to discuss policies, then per WP:LIST "Lists, ... are ... subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." So, without doing original research, how is this list substantiated, and how is it referenced and verified? How do I know the list of towns is complete, in particular? MadScot (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you could look that up in a secondary source...   AndyJones (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for being listcruft at its worst. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This seems a harmless little article. I presume that the (uncited) source is the 2001 census, the latest to be conducted.  Since none has been conducted since, there is no WP:RS on subsequent population.  I expect that Oxfordshire County Council employs a statistician to make estimates of subsequent changes, but they will only be estimates.  It would be useful if data could be added (in further columns) for the population in ealrier censuses.  It will surprise some people that (despite housebuilding) the population of many places varies little between censuses: we are merely spread out more thinly.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Its just a table, it can be slotted into the Oxfordshire article, then improved by making it sortable, and citing the source. MortimerCat (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. Clearly encyclopedic and verifiable subject matter. AndyJones (talk) 08:00, 26 September 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.