Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of churches in Philadelphia


 * 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 04:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

List of churches in Philadelphia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. • Freechild   'sup?   18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. • Freechild   'sup?   13:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory.  Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:52, 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 19:23, 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)


 * Strong keep - there's no reason for deleting this that wouldn't apply equally to all lists in Wikipedia. Waggers 20:08, 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) 20:57, 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. The deletion that might occur in that last case would be a great loss generally, and most specifically in this case.   DDStretch    (talk)  21:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note The notable information in this article is already in Category:Churches in Philadelphia. • Freechild   'sup?   23:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The two things are clearly not identical: the category includes only churches for which there are articles already in existence, whilst the "List of churches in Philadelphia" includes many more, and perhaps all of them–including the ones without articles at the moment. The absence of an article does not in itself guarantee lack of notability. In fact the complete list adds more than is given by the category. So if one were to be deleted, it should be the category. However, both are useful as they serve different purposes. Hence both should stay.  DDStretch    (talk)  11:22, 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 03:21, 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)  12:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list contains encyclopedic information that is not duplicated in the category. It is certainly not "an indiscriminate collection of information" as claimed by Freechild and it is not in breach of the WP:NOT policy. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Another note. In addition to 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?   03:35, 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)  13:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * keep in accordance with WP:CLS and Wikipedia:Lists. --Paularblaster 02:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Paularblaster & DDStretch's through listing of wikipedia's policy on lists. Waarmstr 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note Since there are no citations on the page and there is no content of notable reference, this list also violates WP:V. • Freechild   'sup?   17:14, 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)  18:12, 4 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.