Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Primary Route Destinations in the United Kingdom

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Although there is less than a two-thirds majority, I am making my decision in connection with another AFD debate, Articles for deletion/List of primary route destinations in English Counties. That debate will almost certainly end with a "delete" result on all those lists, making this article useless. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

List of Primary Route Destinations in the United Kingdom
Wikipedia is not a travel guide or collection of links I would like this vote to include all the List of Primary Route Destination by county pages as well, which simply consist of links to the named towns, etc. I do not think that this category of pages is encyclopedic and I think these pages violate several points of what Wikipedia is not. --G Rutter 09:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As the writer of this list, I have decided to move it and the lists for particular counties to Wikitravel. If you wish to contribute there, please feel free to do so. Ted Ted 10:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into one list, assuming there is a consistent system that the road department follows. (By the way, in the U.S. these are known as control cities, and are not very consistent, but that may be because different states do things differently.) --SPUI (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but it needs much more coverage of what this system is about. This is neither a travel guide article or a collection of (external) links. CalJW 18:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The articles are a collection of internal links, which is also listed in WP:NOT. Also, if they're not a travel guide, what are they? --G Rutter 07:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Check again. There is an exception, not only for disambiguations, but also "for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." This is a classic case, organizing the articles on Department of Transport-designated major locations within a county into a single list. --Tony Sidaway Talk  17:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, but here's the crux, Tony: the DoT-designated major locations aren't encyclopedic per se. Listing them doesn't help in that department. / Peter Isotalo 17:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Spooey Roodog2k (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Utterly useless.  This is just a list of towns.  Not remotely encyclopedic even if it was fleshed out. Gamaliel 23:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It gives no more information than a linked list of counties in UK (which exists) where each county includes a list of linked towns. That'll do for me. -- SGBailey 20:26:35, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
 * Keep. Excellent idea, very useful list. --Tony Sidaway Talk  09:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Useful for what? The article doesn't tell. Pilatus 15:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * They provide a link into the organization of the road system. Tag each destination with the major roads leading through it, and then link each road to each relevant county article for destinations along it, and you have a completely different way of studying the geography of Britain, using the structure of the road system itself.  This is excellent stuff. --Tony Sidaway Talk  17:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This provides links to counties which in turn provides a list of cities. No context given. WP:NOT a directory of original data Pilatus 15:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Arbitrary list. / Peter Isotalo 21:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't understand what it is a list of if you consider it "arbitrary". --SPUI (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned "arbitrary" and "pedantically over-specified" differ little in this context. This serves absolutely no purpose except to entertain some editors and a few road aficonados. / Peter Isotalo 16:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete seems like just a list of Countys -- red stucco 08:45, 12 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.