Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of churches in Oxford


 * 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. Core desat 04:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

List of churches in Oxford

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. • Freechild   'sup?   18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. • Freechild   'sup?   13:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory.  Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:44, 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.  Oxford, like Venice, is probably also full of churches that merit articles in their own right. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:24, 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?   19:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a subpage leading from a section on the main page Oxford, to make that article more compact. The ecclesiastical architecture & history of a city is generally regarded as notable. --mervyn 20:11, 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) 20:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The arguments of all the previous respondents who have indicated "Keep" are most telling, whilst the arguments of Freechild would, if adhered to across the board, mean almost all "list of..." articles would be deleted from wikipedia, and are most unconvincing. The deletion that might occur in that last case would be a great loss generally, and most specifically in this case.   DDStretch    (talk)  21:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note. This list does not add anything of value not already included in Category:Churches in Oxford. • Freechild   'sup?   23:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you meant Oxford so I chnaged it. --Bduke 06:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that lists differ from categories in that lists can display redlinks, indicating future development.--mervyn 10:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * keep A good set encyclopedic information befitting WP. The only thing indiscriminate here is the deletion nomination and the additional misrepresentation of the facts regarding the content of the article. Hmains 03:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Oxford has many notable churches and I think this article could be expanded and improved to give useful information that is not available on individual articles on some churches. --Bduke 06:12, 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 areb 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)  12:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list contains encyclopedic information that is not duplicated in the category, as stated above. 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 15:36, 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)  13:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * strong keep in accordance with WP:CLS and Wikipedia:Lists. --Paularblaster 02:10, 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?   17:20, 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)  18:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This badgering about the AfD is what I referenced earlier ddstretch, and I am going to ask you once again to please be civil. It is rather offensive to me that you continuously harass me with demands to "withdraw the AfD", and that you continuously harp my having listed multiple AfDs. If you have something constructive to add to the discussion please add that; otherwise, please stop with your line of incessant nagging. • Freechild   'sup?   22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not misrepresent the facts. As others have commented in some of the other discussions, you are misrepresenting them in the matter of the nominations (see comments by User:Necrothesp and others in almost all of the other nominations), and in your description of my actions, you are misrepresenting them again. "Demands" do not equate with the form of words I have used: I use "suggests" and related forms. "Harrass" is not appropriate, since you continually make the same erroneous claims, they deserve to be countered. And, to paraphrase another editor in response to your claim that I was being uncivil in another of the nominations (Articles for deletion/List of churches in Greater Manchester): "to disagree with you, or to voice my counter arguments in an assertive manner does not equate to incivility". Furthermore, to say that I am engaged in "incessant nagging" can be explained by the fact that you are very often repeating the same erroneous claims many times, despite having them refuted by many other editors.   DDStretch    (talk)  22:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Citation added to verify that churches do (notably) exist in Oxford. --Paularblaster (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But hang on a moment - you're the one that's worrying about it, and in the time it's taken you to fuss here, you could have gone out and verified it yourself. My assumption of good faith is being stretched to breaking point. --Paularblaster (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - there's no reason for deleting this that wouldn't apply equally to all lists in Wikipedia. Furthermore it seems clear to me from their other nominations and the trolling within them that the nominator is WP:POINTing (although goodness knows what point they're trying to make). Waggers (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * comment. It's always hazardous to guess the intentions of others, but I suspect the POINT is that the deletion of List of churches in Fort Wayne, Indiana shouldn't have been allowed to slip under the radar. Clearly the consensus (minus the original point-making nomination) is that these lists should be kept. How do we get an administrator to close this time-wasting thread? --Paularblaster (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also relevant might be List of churches in Edmonton, Alberta in which the editor referred to many of the lists in the swathe of AfDs here. The editor also made very similar comments in many more AfDs about lists of churches. In the case of Articles for deletion/List of churches in Omaha, Nebraska (a geographic area of interest according to other edits) the editor made edits which saved it from deletion. It is sad that he is not willing to afford this current swathe of AfDs the same leeway.  DDStretch    (talk)  11:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And all the rest of the AfDs for list of churches in ... nominated by this editor on 1st December or thereabouts.   DDStretch    (talk)  10:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Paularblaster, et al: There is no significant connection to this string of AfDs. After participating/watching the series of AfDs alluded to by ddstretch I became concerned about the veracity of the lists of churches on WP. Paularblaster, you pointed me to a useful tool in Google Maps: that particular source shows that there are at least 449 churches near Oxford. I think we can all agree that they should not be included here - unless they all prove to be notable. How is notability proven? Citations! Alas, the source of my AfD: this is a wholly uncited article, and as such it is merely WP:Listcruft. I am challenging that, and not trying to make a point. • Freechild   'sup?   12:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - ddstretch, nice sleuthing. I have nothing against you, and this isn't personal. • Freechild   'sup?   12:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And, once again, you repeat an supposed characteristic of this list (listcruft in this case), which has been dealt with in a previous message on this page without even attempting to deal with the refutations that your first mention of "listcruft" attracted. Note: i also do not have any personal against you, but I am against sloppy argumentation, and misleading and WP:POINT-like arguments.  DDStretch    (talk)  13:09, 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.