Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities in the rust belt


 * 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. -- Steel 18:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

List of cities in the rust belt

 * — (View AfD)

Pointless list of declining cities. The list doesn't include half of the rust belt cites, and the article would be huge if they were all included. It could hypothetically be merged to Rust Belt, but it really should be deleted outright. BarryBonds100 02:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful. Puppy Mill 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not all of these cities verifiably identify with the Rust Belt- particularly around the border. If anything, this list would be better off as a category where appropriate. --Wafulz 04:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above point (useful). Sharkface217 04:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * comment: "Useful" has never been really a valid criteria for keeping, though it may contribute, many things in wp:not are useful as well... Wintermut3 06:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What part of WP:NOT do you think applies here? The list is well-defined, and the concept is very well known, so "indiscriminate" simply doesnt apply. ---J.S (T/C) 07:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This material is already covered more than adequately by Rust Belt. Allon Fambrizzi 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
 * Keep because the Rustbelt is a notable and verifiable concept. A list of cities that lie within the metaphorical area called the "Rustbelt" sounds very reasonable to me. ---J.S (T/C) 07:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep provides an easier way to find cities in the rust belt because it is a list. Rhino131 13:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Would this not work better as a category then? --Wafulz 13:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This material is already covered more than adequately by Rust Belt.--SethTisue 14:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's definitly not in Rust Belt. One is a list of cities in the rust belt and one is an article on what the rust belt is. Are you trying to propose a merge? ---J.S (T/C) 15:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If this list were complete, it would be ridiculously huge. As it's used in Rust Belt, it's probably best to have a category made for those cities. Also, it seems the list is at odds with the geographic definition of Rust Belt, as there are cities listed that are most certainly not in the belt. --Sable232 15:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)]
 * Delete This would be better done as a category, applied to cities as needed. /Blaxthos 16:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Categorize. Although it may be somewhat useful as it is, if it was a category it would more helpful. 11kowrom 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Despite being incomplete, the list is useful and verifyable.  The rustbelt is a notable concept.  AubreyEllenShomo 21:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I think a category for this is better, since its very hard to compile such a long list of cities. A couple of such lists need to go, though I have a liking for lists more than categories. Ter e nce Ong 05:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A category gets the job done easier. My question is, the Rust Belt article doesn't define Missouri or Minnesota as Rust Belt states, yet some of their cities are included. Should the article be kept, I suggest this discrepancy be fixed. SliceNYC 14:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, just decide which are the 5 or 6 major Rust Belt cities and list them or mention them in the Rust Belt article. People will inevitable try to add more, but rv them when they do otherwise someone will try to split out another article exactly like this and we'll all meet back here in 9 months and do this all over again. Recury 14:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A category would be helpful though. Borjon22 16:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think there's consensus on what exactly geographically the "rust belt" is. Residents of some of these municipalities might be surprised to find their location included (Thunder Bay, Ontario?).  Delete for list inclusion being far too arbitrary. --Oakshade 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the article and turn into a category (for those cities which are verifiably in the rust belt. --G Rutter 11:24, 9 December 2006 (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.