Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conservation areas 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 unanimous keep. Nihiltres ( t .l ) 18:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

List of conservation areas in the United Kingdom

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

It is with a heavy heart that I nominate this article for deletion. Simply, the scope of the article is so huge that I do not think it is ever going to be completed; the original author got as far as listing 256 conservation areas in four counties - out of at least 8000 in the whole country. Simply, I think the list is too long and unmaintainable to ever amount to a complete and useful article. DWaterson 21:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep its easy to be daunted by the enormity of the task, however I think that the topic is important enough to make an attempt. KTo288 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Everything in Wikipedia is an ongoing project. It's hard to imagine any article being "completed."  It's certainly an encyclopedic topic. --Oakshade 02:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I understand the nominator's concern, but I feel that this is a question of article organisation which is better suited to the talk page than an AfD debate. There isn't really a reason for deletion here. The list has a very specific, objective, and verifiable criteria for inclusion. Yes, it is a work in progress - but so is Wikipedia as a whole. If the list becomes unmanageably large, it can be separated into lists by region. Actually, since all the counties listed thus far are in England, it could be moved to List of conservation areas in England, but this is an editing issue. Again, I sympathise with the nominator but deletion is inappropriate in this instance. --TreeKittens 05:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, it is common procedure in Wikipedia to split huge lists into smaller ones, either geogrpahically, or time-wise, or alphabetically. CG 07:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Wikipedia is an ongoing project and won't be perfect.  Tbo 157   (talk)    (review)  19:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. If this list gets unwieldy, as is suggested by the title and the number of conservation areas, then it can be split.  Actually, it could be split right now into lists for just those four counties, and then it could mention that the list is incomplete.  Either way, deletion is overkill for addressing the intended scope of this article.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 01:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. Rgds, --Trident13 13:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - size is not a factor. (Look at Wikipedia as a whole - it's a huge undertaking, but we took it on anyways).  The Transhumanist 21:57, 7 October 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.