Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historic buildings and architects of 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 no consensus fishhead64 00:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

List of historic buildings and architects of the United Kingdom

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Totally unreferenced, and highly subjective listing exercise (weighing in at a gargantuan 99 kilobytes long). Breach of WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a directory; Wikipedia is not a repository of links; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information), WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. A classic example of pure WP:Listcruft. Please note that there are around half a million listed buildings alone in the UK - how many Wikipedia kilobytes would be required to list just that lot of "historic buildings", even without the architects and archaelogical stuff? Mais oui! 08:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - ultimately doing nothing more than categorising the articles (no additional information). That's what we have the category system for.Madmedea 13:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As much as I like excruciatingly long lists that contain no criteria for inclusion and are not verified by any independent sources while being completely devoid of any discernible non arbitrary organizational system, I'm going to have to vote delete on sheer principle --Cy ru s   An dir on   15:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepNone of the criticisms of the nominator are valid in this case. The buildings and sites almost all have their own Wikipedia articles. A list is a valid and useful way of organizing such information by period and style. As an example of the usefulness, the Norman structures are listed as a group in the list, and they are described as such on the individual articles, but the categorization system does not bring them together as such. Both approaches add to the functionality of Wikipedia. This is not just a long run-on list, and the division into periods and styles adds information not found via categories. The length of the list just reflects the importance and long history of the subject. It also allows notable structures to  be added which do not yet have their own articles, as a spur to further worthwhile Wikipedia articles. Edison 15:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: 1) If the current categories do not create this list then new categories could be created as sub-categories of Category:Buildings and structures in the United Kingdom. As has already started to happen with Category:Anglo-Saxon architecture] and [[:Category:Georgian architecture. 2) I can't imagine an architect who was so prolific that their list of works could not be included in their own article - and so go part of the way to encouraging new article creation. Madmedea 18:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Fascinating list that does no harm at all, and quite a lot of good if only to see, at a quick glance, what is a red link. No advantage or point in deleting this at all. Giano 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this list has a striking advantage over categories, in that it's chronological from top to bottom. I don't think there's any way of achieving that with cats, and it's surely, for "historic" items, a valuable dimension. Bishonen | talk 21:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Source If sourced than a excecptional article but otherwise that deletion is the only reasonable option.-- St.daniel talk 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. The list does need some kind of framework and criteria for inclusion - suggest we give the author a month to establish such and edit accordingly. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic source notes/duplicate of the better organised and more frequently updated category system. Don't waste time on this, improve Architecture of the United Kingdom and the many related proper articles instead. Postlebury 20:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Use category instead as it is just simply a list, providing no extra information. --Cyktsui 02:39, 24 April 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fishhead64 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC).