Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United Parcel Service hubs


 * 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

List of United Parcel Service hubs

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is simply a list of business locations that handle packages. These are not "hubs" and the vast, vast majority of them are simply not notable. It is a directory, which clearly falls under WP:NOT. It is similar to listing every McDonalds restaurant or every bus stop in New York City. Major facilities (like UPS WorldPort) can be listed on the UPS page and the other simply do not need to be mentioned, let alone mentioning internal coding or naming for each location. Note that it was prodded way back in 2006. Ravendrop 07:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. If you can source that any of these are major employers for particular localities, that might be worth mentioning in those localities' articles. Or if any of these are particularly significant to UPS operations, such as processing the most packages, the oldest, whatever, that could be mentioned in the UPS article. But otherwise this info should at most just be summarized in the aggregate in the main article, like "UPS maintains [###] hubs across all 50 states" or whatever. Listing out all of them like this does seem to me like an indiscriminate business directory. Not quite as indiscminate as listing McDonald's franchises, but still not encyclopedic.postdlf (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – In its present state, the article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. That being said, there are sources available about various UPS service hubs that could be used to source/rewrite this article, create an addition to the main UPS article, to create a new standalone article about UPS Service hubs themselves, if the main article would become too long with inclusion of the information. Here's an example source search. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, bub, but NOT trumps NOTE p  b  p  01:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure exactly what you're saying here. A section that goes into some detail about UPS hubs actually exists in the main UPS article, located here: United Parcel Service, and reliable sources about UPS hubs are readily available. My comment is simply a note that a rewrite in encyclopedic style could occur, based upon reliable sources. This could possibly occur in this article (possibly along with a renaming of the title), the UPS article or in a new article titled United Parcel Service hubs. Perhaps I'll spend some time updating and improving the section in the main UPS article about their hubs, or consider creating a new standalone article, when I have the time. Cheers! Northamerica1000(talk) 02:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and per WP:DIRECTORY. This is way beyond what we should have on WP. We should stick to our knitting and try and make things easier for editors . -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. GregJackP   Boomer!   22:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or upmerge: per not-directory. We don't need a list of all the establishments of a given company  p  b  p  01:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Indiscriminate directory of non-notable items. Of no possible encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete – The article fails WP:DIRECTORY in its present state, and would require an entire rewrite and name change to exist in encyclopedic style. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:00, 5 September 2012 (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.