Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. Army bases in North Carolina


 * 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 - kept

List of U.S. Army bases in North Carolina
This entry can not become encyclopedic. It is a list with only one item. I live in North Carolina and, to the best of my knowledge, the state has only one Army base. I see no reason for a list that can only have one item. For any reader wanting to put the base, Fort Bragg, into context, the base's article page is in the categories Bases of the U.S. Army and Military bases in North Carolina. Maurreen 04:19, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * No vote. A question: If we delete this, will we delete all the ~30 articles linked from List of U.S. Army bases that list all army bases in a specific state?  Acegikmo1 04:50, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to delete them all. I suggest this one because the list only has one item. Maurreen 05:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * What about the other ones with just one item (e.g. SC, NM)? The ones with two entries?  I think that SimonP's suggestions is a good one.  I vote to delete and move the content from the individual state aritcles into the main article (like List of United States Navy bases).  Acegikmo1 05:31, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * List of United States Navy bases is a good model. I have added Fort Bragg, the only base on the article North Carolina list, to List of U.S. Army bases. Maurreen 06:45, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * If these lists are complete there seem to be few enough that these pages can all be merged into and then redirected to List of U.S. Army bases. - SimonP 04:57, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sigh. This is a flat namespace artifact. All these articles are an aggregate, it doesn't matter if they do or don't appear in your browser all at once. Keep or Delete the aggregate as a whole, I vote Keep. Kim Bruning 09:36, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being incomplete is not a reason to delete. An incomplete list is a stub like all other stubs we don't delete either. Wyllium 11:10, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)
 * Keep. Potentionally useful navigational aid. jni 13:29, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a list. It's got to go. --Improv 19:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Simply being a list is not a valid reason for deletion. See the opening of What is an article and List of lists. Niteowlneils 23:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge into some sort of motherlist on the topic. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  20:45, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * At the risk of (a) exposing my ignorance, (b) stirring up a hornet's nest &#8212; can't many lists be better managed as Categories? You can navigate down a well-constructed category just as nicely, if not nicer, than from a list. Delete and if need be, set up the appropriate cat structure. &#8212; Bill 23:05, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You're entirely correct. Hopefully the category system in MediaWiki will eventually allow a reader to find articles that are in both Category:Bases of the U.S. Army and Category:North Carolina, and then we will be able to delete a great many other pointless List_of_... articles. ~leif
 * Keep, or possibly merge/redir to List of U.S. Army bases. Niteowlneils 23:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge all of these into the single List of U.S. Army bases then copy/paste the edit histories over so we can delete these and not have to keep the redirects. Rossami 02:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid encyclopaedic list. 80.255 17:50, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pointless list. Use categories. ~leif 08:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mark Richards 17:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, an army of one does not imply that a list of one should survive. I'd support killing other lists of 1. (Remember that argument about deaths due to a turtle falling on your head?  this is essentially similar.) -Vina 17:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:30, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 02:46, 16 Oct 2004 (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.