Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Salvation Army corps in the United Kingdom in 1900


 * 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. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 14:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Salvation Army corps in the United Kingdom in 1900
A list of places where the Salvation Army was operating in 1900. Unencylopedic, largely useless, and wildly overspecific. Delete. Dylan 18:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't believe we have reached Salvationcruft, but I gotta call it as I see it. A current list of Salvation Army corps might be encyclopedic (though difficult to maintain). A list of 1900 corps is totally worthless to anyone not researching a history text on the Salvation Army. Delete. Alba 19:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. RedRollerskate 19:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * retain - this list is encyclopedic. The intention is to have another list showing the situation at 2000 which would show how dramatically this once large organisation has shrunk in this country.  A current list would be difficult to maintain, but a list based on fixed historical points in time would not be so. It is an important article on the basis of social history Rhyddfrydol 01:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If the point is to demonstrate how greatly the organization has grown, then why isn't a sentence that says "In 2000, the Salvation Army had 400 chapters, whereas in 1900 they had only 50" sufficient? Dylan 01:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote to keep this article - I found it very interesting, though incomplete. Very worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.  I'm sure people in some of the communities where there was a Salvation Army meeting place in 1900 would be interested to know this. Petepetepete 12:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Being "interesting" to you or anyone else is not a criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia. Could you please address the concerns that this violates What Wikipedia is not that "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information" ? Dylan 14:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * is Dylan going to make an adverse comment on everyone with a different view to his? Rhyddfrydol 22:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment My comments are not "adverse" or antagonistic; this being a discussion/debate, I'm trying to demonstrate that this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion, partially by pointing out that the objections you and Petepetepete have raised are not valid reasons for inclusion. Discussion is the point of AfD. If you think that the article does meet the criteria, then it shouldn't be a problem for you to argue as such. Dylan 02:09, 21 October 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.