Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of grain elevators


 * 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   no consensus. Onetwo three... 01:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

List of grain elevators

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A crufty list which is unmaintainable, considering how many grain elevators there are in the world. Since grain elevators are not notable in the majority of cases, a complete list of all of them is not notable either. The notable grain elevators are already covered by and a section of Grain elevator. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 19:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's pretty well-established that lists of articles and even lists of items that are important but not notable can be acceptable, this one appears useful. The other option would be to merge it with the primary article since it's not so long. See WP:LIST. Either is acceptable to me but deletion isn't.  I too would assume most grain elevators are NOT notable or important and that this list would never  be very long. Drawn Some (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Although I'm not averse to a "list of &lt;foo&gt;" in general, even when not every &lt;foo&gt; listed is individually notable enough to justify its own categorizable article, this specific list seems to be no more than a trivial re-statement of an already existing category. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with Andy Dingley. List already exists. I no longer object to keeping it. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:CLN the existence of a category is not a reason to delete a list.  Personally I'm of the view that a list should be deleted if it adds nothing above the category listing.  This list already does however add something, for example by including locations and construction dates, neither of which is obvious from a category listing. Dpmuk (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You make a good point (and in general, I like lists that present a conceptual "list" as a sequence with some theme, more than merely a set of linked articles). However this country / date annotation isn't going far enough to convince me. Why should I care that one elevator was built in 1900 and another in 1923? Was there a switch in building materials between these dates? The economics of bulk grain handling? Tell me _why_ the history of grain elevators developed over this sequence and I'll be converted. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename to List of elevators on NRHP list to set the scope. Listing all facilities in an industry is futile, but since it's limited to a single country's list of historical buildings it's verifiable and manageable. NVO (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This will need a bit of retooling to make it "List of historic/notable grain elevators" or "List of grain elevators of such-and-such qualification", but it's at least useful as a navigation tool. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unmaintainable list and difficult to verify. SYSS Mouse (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Cruft is a nice term to toss about when 11 different meanings are tacked to it, whats your definition of it as it applies to this list of the Notable & Verifiable and independantly Articled. :Cats and Lists can co-exist, esp. when this list provides more than a :Cat can, and does. Unmaintainable? ... its easy to remove any redlinks... which have yet to show up. A merge is possible into the Parent Article, but there should be a redir in any case, so whats the difference, the Wiki is not paper. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  06:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete an obviously incomplete list of pages which in and of themselves are probably questionably notable. Unmaintainable. Ngaskill (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Open question - exactly what makes this list unmaintainable? Its not like its 80Kb long, so there is no problems of wading through masses of information, and I am unable to locate any WP:Unmaintainable related documents ? Am I missing something ? Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  09:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the nice things about MediaWiki (cf other wikis) is its strong auto-categorization features. We have a pretty good "list of grain elevators" at Category:Grain elevators, with no additional maintenance overhead at all. So this list article only justifies its existence if it's adding something that the simple auto-cat can't; frequently this can be describing some sort of historical context to them. I'd like to see this list survive, if it can justify itself in this way, but it does have to be doing something beyond that simple cat page, otherwise it's just duplication. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, if someone creates a new notable grain elevator page, who is going to be responsible for maintaining that this manual list be updated? I believe the category handles this already and accurately.Ngaskill (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As to my original "unmaintainable" comment, that was a reference to the number of non-notable grain elevators there are. If this page included all of those, which are currently within its scope, it would be 80KB long. (I'm actually not entirely opposed to a list of notable grain elevators, so long as someone can show that it would add something to the current list/category I mentioned.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice awnsers, but not awnsering my question. What makes this list unmaintainable. There are no redlinks. There is more content than a :Cat could provide. It's limited to the Notable/Articled. You're arguing that it could become something that it currently has not shown any signs of becomming. I believe by adding 1 word to the Lede, your concerns have been taken care of, something that WP:Before should have taken care of. The current title of the Article is the perfect search term for people looking for such a list, as well as fitting well inline into any current Article text. As for "who is going to be responsible for maintaining" ... whom is responsible for any particular Articles? Would that not imply WP:Ownership? Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  02:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:LC items 1-4, 8, and 11. Stifle (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2009 (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.