Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of churches in Hampshire


 * 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The result was keep, withdrawn. Core desat 04:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

List of churches in Hampshire

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. • Freechild   'sup?   18:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. • Freechild   'sup?   13:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory.  Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even given that only notable churches should have articles, and that non-notable churches should not be redlinked, this is nevertheless an obviously useful indexing page. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because a list can be made does not mean it should be. A list of churches in Manchester is not inherently any more valuable than a list of pizza parlors in Manchester, per Malinaccier. • Freechild   'sup?   19:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indexing and cross-indexing remain one of the weaknesses of the project. Lists help remedy this.  And yes, a list of churches in Hampshire is indeed more valuable than a list of pizza parlors; few pizza parlors have any historic, artistic, or devotional significance, in other words they are not notable, but churches definitely have that potential.  Suggest that some centralized discussion of all these AfDs might be appropriate. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - there's no reason for deleting this that wouldn't apply equally to all lists in Wikipedia. Waggers 20:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep.  In WP:NOT it states: Wikipedia is not the yellow pages.  A listing of places (like churches in my opinion) in a city would qualify as this.  Despite this, the argumentst presented by all above have persuaded me to ignore this, and change to keep. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If implemented consistently across wikipedia, all "list of..." articles would also be deleted. In fact, the reasons given by all those who have indicated "Keep" are most convincing, and the one offered by Freechild is utterly unconvincing in this instance.  DDStretch    (talk)  21:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - this information is not indiscriminate Mighty Antar 23:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note. The notable information in this list is redundant to Category:Churches in Hampshire. • Freechild   'sup?   01:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note. The notable information in this list is synergistic to Category:Churches in Hampshire. see WP:CLS Mighty Antar 01:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * keep A good set encyclopedic information befitting WP. The only thing indiscriminate here is the deletion nomination.  Hmains 03:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is becoming tedious in the extreme to duplicate identical counter-arguments in every similar AfD Freechild has proposed regarding lists of churches. I suggest people look through the other nominations and note the general issues regarding deletion that people have raised there. In fact, I suggest all of the nominations are immediately closed and the nominator invited to resubmit them as a "job lot", so they can be considered together. There are about 6 or so of them.  DDStretch    (talk)  12:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list contains encyclopedic information that is not duplicated in the category. It is not "an indiscriminate collection of information" as claimed by Freechild and it is not in breach of the WP:NOT policy. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Another note. In addition to clearly violating WP:NOT, this is listcruft and there are plenty of current precedents, including List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana (2nd nomination) and List of shopping malls in Malaysia. • Freechild   'sup?   03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As previous refutations have indicated, it does not clearly violate WP:NOT, and the label of listcruft, as the article itself states, cannot stand on its own as a sole reason to delete the article. Indeed, reading the guidelines given in Lists, one can see that this article is a completely valid example of a list (see the "In a Nutshell" summary section, and the main sections.)  DDStretch    (talk)  13:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * keep in accordance with WP:CLS and Wikipedia:Lists. --Paularblaster 02:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note Since there are no citations on the page and there is no content of notable reference, this list clearly violates WP:V. • Freechild   'sup?   17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is so clear, I am puzzled why it did not form part of the justification for the initial AfD. Similarly, if it lacks citations, then label it as such (the templates are there to be used). An immediate AfD is an extreme first step to take. I suggest you withdraw this AfD, as you have already done with at least one other, and issue the appropriate warning labels if required.  DDStretch    (talk)  18:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Citation added. --Paularblaster (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Paularblaster, your apparent attempt at citing Google Maps illustrates the inanity of this list: according to your source, there are "4,706 churches near Hampshire". Let the list grow! Why limit it to a limited group of a few dozen churches when there could be 4,706 churches listed and redlinked? Using Google Maps as a source tells the average reader that simply because something exists it should be in a WP article. However, that does not qualify a topic as worthy, and the subject of this list (Churches in Hampshire) has simply not been proven to be notable with your citation. Moreso, your citation simply proves that this is an indiscriminate collection of information. • Freechild   'sup?   04:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Freechild (and others) I suggest you read the refutations of this latest attempt to justify this AfD in Articles for deletion/List of churches in Venice and Articles for deletion/List of churches in Florence. The reason you accuse me in Articles for deletion/List of churches in Oxford of incivility is because you simply are ignoring quite reasonable refutations of your arguments. So, they get repeated. When you can no longer maintain them, you find other reasons that you think show the articles to be deficient. As two other editors have now stated, the assumption of good faith is being stretched to its breaking point here. Once again.: assertive disagreements with your position do not constitute incivility.   DDStretch    (talk)  09:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, the allegation that this is an indiscriminate list of information fails. The referenvce supplied need not be the only one that can be added. Now that i see you are withdrawing the AfDs against the other list of churches articles you initiated, I trust that the very similar, even identical arguments used in this AfD will result in its withdrawal by yourswlf.  DDStretch    (talk)  13:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: I have now added a more complete and specific set of references to the article.  DDStretch    (talk)  14:00, 5 December 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.