Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United Kingdom locations


 * 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 Keep all as no one is opting for deletion.-- JForget 00:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

List of United Kingdom locations

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The first line of the main article states that it is a "A gazetteer of place names in the United Kingdom".

The first line of the Gazetteer article states "A gazetteer is a geographical directory".

Official Wikipedia policy states "Wikipedia is not a directory".

These articles go against policy - are huge - List of United Kingdom locations: Be-Bn is the third largets article on Wikipedia - and do very little to inform the reader about the places listed any more than a catagory would.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason(s):


 * List of United Kingdom locations: Aa-Ak
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Al
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Am-Ar
 * List of United Kingdom locations: As-Az
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Bab-Bad
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Bae-Bak
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Bal
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Bam-Bap
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Bar
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Bas-Baz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Be-Bn
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Boa-Bot
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Bou-Bra
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Bre-Bri
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Bro-Bron
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Broo-Brt
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Bru-Bun
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Bur-Bz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Ca-Cap
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Car-Cd
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Ce-Chap
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Char-Che
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Chi-Ck
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Cl-Cn
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Co-Col
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Com-Cor
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Cos-Cra
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Cre-Cro
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Cru-Cz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Da-Dd
 * List of United Kingdom locations: De-Dn
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Do-Dr
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Ds-Dz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Ea-Eass
 * List of United Kingdom locations: East
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Eat-Ee
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Ef-El
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Em-Ez
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Fa-Fe
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Ff-Fn
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Fo-Foz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Fr-Fz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Ga
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Ge-Gl
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Gm-Gq
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Gr-Gred
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Gree-Gz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Ha-Ham
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Han-Har
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Has-Hd
 * List of United Kingdom locations: He-Hem
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Hen-Hh
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Hi-Highr
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Highs-Hn
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Ho-Hoo
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Hop-Ht
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Hu-Hz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: I
 * List of United Kingdom locations: J
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Ka-Key
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Kib-Kin
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Kip-Kz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: La-Laz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Le
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Lf-Litm
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Litn-Liz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Ll
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Lm-Loi
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Lol-Lov
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Low-Loz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Lu-Ly
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Ma-Maq
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Mar-Md
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Me-Mic
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Mid-Mn
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Mo-Mor
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Mos-Mz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Na-Nev
 * List of United Kingdom locations: New-Newl
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Newm-Nh
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Ni-North G
 * List of United Kingdom locations: North H-Nz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: O-Om
 * List of United Kingdom locations: On-Oz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Pa
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Pe-Pen
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Peo-Pn
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Po-Pzz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Pr-Pz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Q
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Ra-Ray
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Re-Ror
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Ros-Rz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Ri-Rz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Sa
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Sb-Sf
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Sg-Sh
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Si-Sm
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Sn-Souts
 * List of United Kingdom locations: South-South O
 * List of United Kingdom locations: South P-Sp
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Sq-Stap
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Star-Sti
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Sto-St Q
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Str-Stt
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Stu-Sz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Ta-Tha
 * List of United Kingdom locations: The-Thh
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Thi-Thw
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Ti
 * List of United Kingdom locations: To-Tq
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Tr-Tre
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Tri-Tz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: U-Uppeq
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Upper-Uz
 * List of United Kingdom locations: V
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Wa-Wal
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Wam-Way
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Wd-West End
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Weste-West L
 * List of United Kingdom locations: West M-Wey
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Wh
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Wi-Win
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Wir-Wood
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Woof-Wy
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Y
 * List of United Kingdom locations: Z
 * List of United Kingdom locations: A
 * List of United Kingdom locations: B
 * List of United Kingdom locations: C
 * List of United Kingdom locations: D
 * List of United Kingdom locations: E
 * List of United Kingdom locations: F
 * List of United Kingdom locations: G
 * List of United Kingdom locations: H
 * List of United Kingdom locations: K
 * List of United Kingdom locations: L
 * List of United Kingdom locations: M
 * List of United Kingdom locations: N
 * List of United Kingdom locations: O
 * List of United Kingdom locations: P
 * List of United Kingdom locations: S
 * List of United Kingdom locations: T
 * List of United Kingdom locations: U
 * List of United Kingdom locations: W
 * Guest9999 21:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I have found this a very useful directory. The main point is, we are allowed to break rules here on Wikipedia, and this is one that is being applied too rigidly I think.--Filll 22:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This can in no way be covered by categories as it gives details of the authority each place is under and its location with appropriate links to the map tools. As for size of articles that is no reason for deletion of articles. Keith D 22:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per above. Epbr123 22:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL is not a good justification for keeping an article that you admit goes against policy - Wikipedia is not a directory. Of course directories can be useful - as can game guides, restaurant reviews and many other things - but that doesn't mean they should be part of an encyclopaedia.Guest9999 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)]]
 * USEFUL is one of the criteria for a list, though perhaps not an ordinary article DGG (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep They certainly perform a useful purpose for encyclopaedia building, as they show at a glance which locations are still in need of articles, and in the meantime they hold basic information on the ones for which we don't have articles (A category can't do either of these things). As for encyclopaedic merit in their own right, Wikipedia... incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs - I think these can be justified as parts of an almanac. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 22:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I was basically going to write what Iain99 wrote. This is within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Mr pand 22:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions.   —Iain99Balderdash and piffle 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The distinction between directory information (not allowed) and that which appears in an almanac (allowed) is a subtle one, and that seems to be what this nominator has tripped up over. SP-KP 22:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep for all the above reasons Saga City 22:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The lists provide more information than a category could (Local authority, Coordinates, & OS grid reference), and are sourced through the majority of blue links. Besides Wikipedia being an Encyclopedia (a definition of which, "a reference work... dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty" does not specifically exclude such an article), the very Five pillars you link to state: "Wikipedia works by building consensus" and "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". Insisting on a literal interpretation and application of a particular policy over consensus in order to remove articles is not the way Wikipedia works. Dekkappai 22:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply I agree - the reason I nominated the articles was because they clearly go against a policy (WP:NOT) that was formed by the consensus of the community. Guest9999 22:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)]]


 * Woah! Consensus cannot trump policy.  If you disagree with the policy, you get it changed, you do not "vote" at an xfD that you disagree with the policy and therefore it should be ignored.  An admin who closes a discussion with agreement that the consensus trumps policy should be desysopped.  Corvus cornix 23:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Policy states: "Wikipedia works by building consensus" and "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". Dekkappai 23:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus at AfD is one of the ways in which it interprets policy DGG (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: the fact that the proposer has used some kind of definitional joker card to justify these articles' deletion is a red-herring. It is more than adequately rebutted by the reasons others have already given.  DDStretch    (talk)  23:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The lists are very useful. They provide information of a type that users appreciate and they help to prevent errors. The lists do not define as in a dictionary, but they do inform as do articles. Let's not be too 'precious' - keep the article. Rosser 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep And if the nominator is going to start arguing about dictionary definitions he might also look up the spellings of 'largest' and 'category' while he's at it. These lists, by highlighting places without pages, help the creation of articles which is supposed to be what this encyclopedia is all about. Nick mallory 23:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I have found this list so useful, that I have found myself wishing we had similar lists for other countries. This list was a monumental task and it makes the efforts of those of us trying to build this encyclopedia vastly easier. I can see that before we had this sort of tool, we were much more like blind people groping around. We should be applauding this sort of effort and trying make similar lists in other places rather than attacking it. To create articles for all these places, particularly when we have multiple locations with similar names, is very challenging sometimes. And this is a tool we can use. And I have used it and I expect to use it more. Let's use some common sense here and keep these lists!--Filll 23:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The consensus that is evident here makes it plain that WP:NOT does not accurately reflect consensus regarding articles of this variety and that that portion of WP:NOT should be revised.--Father Goose 06:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure it actually reads revising - people just need to read the whole section, rather than just assuming from the title that it means all that's necessary to have something deleted is to somehow apply the magic word "directory" to it. The footnote "This provision is not intended to encompass lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization..." makes it fairly clear that it doesn't apply to this sort of list. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 07:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * At the very least, then, that line needs to be placed in a more prominent location, not in a footnote.--Father Goose 08:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * While the above is correct I don't think that the lists in question fall within the description of "... lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization ...". I believe they are standalone assets in their own right. Until Wikipedia arrived my main use of the internet was for family history research - such complitaions are invaluable when trying to decode placenames and the like - especially if the reader is not familiar with the country. Wikipedia is in danger of becoming editor-driven; we should think of its readers' needs. Saga City 10:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. It's clear that the consensus is to Keep these articles - but, for the love of all that is holy, PLEASE split them into smaller articles. Their size, in some cases, almost makes them unusable for their intended purpose. I can't imagine there are that many new places coming onto the list, so the format should be static - meaning the lists can be further subdivided without worrying about future expansion. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The longest of them is List of United Kingdom locations: Be-Bn, at 274k. I'm on dialup, and it takes about a minute to load, which is still usable.  But that one is a good candidate for a split, probably into three pieces.  The next biggest is List of United Kingdom locations: Sg-Sh at 113k -- entirely manageable.--Father Goose 18:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SIZE states "> 60 KB - Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)" there seems to be no practical reason why the pages (if kept) couldn't be divided up to, at least, this level. Guest9999 01:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)]]
 * From WP:SIZE: "Please note: These guidelines apply somewhat less to lists or disambiguation pages". I have yet to hear why they'd be better at 50k instead of 100k.  Loading time on dialup is the only factor I can see, and 100k is really not a problem: 20-30 seconds.--Father Goose 03:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I too have found these lists useful, but that fact by itself is not necessarily a reason to keep them. WP:NOT says "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference", which I think includes these lists. They serve a dual function: firstly for WP internal maintenance (and worth keeping for that reason alone), and secondly as a reference useful to Wikipedia's general users. Reading WP:NOT more generally, it is clear that we need to consider the question whether these lists really belong somewhere else, and I think the answer to that is fairly clear, they don't. --NSH001 17:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The consensus seems clear to me. A little tinkering perhaps to make the lists a little more manageable. Good to see the triumph of common sense - a rare thing in this sometimes fanatically rule bound world. Rosser 15:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you may have mistakenly !voted twice, . Guest9999 17:49, 8 November 2007 (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.