Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of incinerators 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 keep. Star  Mississippi  01:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

List of incinerators in the United Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY of mostly non-notable facilities, no evidence of WP:LISTN, and only list of its kind. Navigation is already provided by Category:Incinerators and Category:Waste power stations in the United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 05:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 05:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. –Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 05:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 05:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 05:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The rules clearly state you can't destroy a list because you prefer categories, both can exist. Enough blue links to make this a valid navigational list, and also having other things on it to make it complete makes it a valid information list as well.  Having additional columns added to show the years of operation, size, and any other valid information would be useful, but not required to keep it.   D r e a m Focus  07:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep because (1) the list has a lot of blue-links so it does bring together a range of genuine articles; (2) the subject is of encyclopaedic interest; I can imagine a schoolkid researching a project on waste management and wanting to use WP as a useful unbiased overview; why shouldn't we help them? Elemimele (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How unbiased is the schoolchild going to think Wikipedia is when xe discovers that Wikipedia silently excludes and hundreds of others from its incinerator list? Uncle G (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * fair comment,, but if we delete all WP lists and articles that are either incomplete or contain occasional errors, the remaining three articles won't be too hard to maintain... It'd be better to update this list than delete it, in my view, though that's just an opinion! Elemimele (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Topic lacks coverage in sources to establish that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Elemimele. Mukt (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.