Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom


 * 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. The nominator's objections to this article seem to be related more to how it is named than anything else, and nobody has supported their position that the name is so flawed that we must delete the entire list. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lists must be notable, just like other articles. This is a list about Wikipedia content. Unless someone has written about "How the UK government has been covered in Wikipedia", this is not a notable topic. If someone wants to make a Portal or Outline with similar information, that may be plausible (if it doesn't exist already), but this is not a valid mainspace topic. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. You say that someone could well make an outline with this information, but surely that's what this is? It's a lot more organized than an indiscriminate list would be. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable list, fails WP:N. This could be made into a category. - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't usually advocate the deletion of a list and replacement with a category, but since this list already has a perfectly good category (Category:Local government in the United Kingdom) and is essentially a self-referential Wikipedia list I don't think it's needed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Convert, probably to a portal. In the event no-one has the time to do this at the moment, incubate until someone has the time to convert this. Good resource for navigation of these topics, just in the wrong place. Chris Neville-Smith (talk)
 * Copying over the following from the other deletion discussion I opened at the same time with the same problem): I just want to clarify on (at least my interpretation) of how lists work. We can have lists about "things of type X" in the real world.  We cannot have "lists of articles about things related to X."  The former is an actual list of content; the latter is solely a navigational aid, a kind of crude table of contents.  I have no problem with lists that duplicate categories; I have a problem with lists that are "self-referential".  As far as I can see, nothing in our policies covering lists allow us to have any type of article titled List of articles about ....  And it shouldn't.  We have so many different ways of categorizing information, both reader-facing (lists of topics, portals, outlines, glossaries, overview articles, dab pages), editor-facing (Wikiprojects, noticeboards), and dual-facing (categories, and the search box)...why do we need, in just a select few instances, yet another type of organizational tool?  It's simply the mark of a bad product to have too many different organizing schemes.  More than one is good (I'm thinking here of how a textbook has a ToC, an Index, and a glossary; or how help for Microsoft products has a search box, a glossary, and an Index); too many is redundant.  Too many guarantees that one list or the other isn't fully updated. Too many guarantees that one list or another gets to be used for POV pushing (consider the problems with had with Ethnic categories and Wikiprojects aggressively pushing themselves onto articles).  Maybe I'm raising issues that go beyond one (or two) deletion discussions, and need to be raised in a larger forum. But I think that we have to consider these things as we make these individual decisions. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A good outline article, quite useful for those wishing to navigate through the information.  D r e a m Focus  22:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep- it looks to me like a legitimate navigational and organizational page. Reyk  YO!  02:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to Index of articles about local government in the United Kingdom or Index of local government in the United Kingdom articles, inline with other Index of... artcles, ensuring this navigational page is kept, but is in keeping with WP policy/standards. Zangar (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Joseph Fox 01:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, but Zangar's suggestion to change the name is a good one and it provides the key to all this. "Index of...articles" are very well established and thought appropriate (see Category:Indexes of articles). These are navigational aids rather than articles and they are kept in main space. Whether any particular list is appropriate should be discussed on its own individual merits. In this case the list is well organised and so is more helpful for many purposes than an alphabetically ordered category. It can be wholly appropriate for lists and categories to co-reside (WP:CLN). Portal:Contents/Lists provides a good way into this area for those interested. With relatively little development it could become an outline &mdash; substantially more would be needed to meet portal guidelines.Thincat (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to do justice even if a little convoluted. Jab843 (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2011 (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.