Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in Gloucestershire


 * 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 of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)   16:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

List of places in Gloucestershire
Many of the points I raised in Articles for deletion/List of schools in the United Kingdom (2nd nomination) apply here too, particularly with regards to categorisation and the redlinks issue. In this case, I believe the list is rather more broken. It omits many of the villages which already have articles, and I don't trust all of the redlinks. The county of Gloucestershire and the unitary authority of South Gloucestershire already have comprehensive and well organised geographical categories (see Category:Towns in Gloucestershire (30entries), Category:Villages in Gloucestershire (111 entries), Category:Villages in South Gloucestershire (88), Category:Towns in South Gloucestershire (11)), and this list serves no additional useful purpose. Delete. kingboyk 12:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Categories are awesome and are way better for this kind of thing.  As long as everything is dropped into the correct categories, and I trust kingboyk to have ensured that, then this serves no purpose other than looking like ass.    Proto    ||    type    14:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete pn. A clearly explained and well argued nomination. Kcordina Talk 14:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. PJM 14:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep I tend to like to keep lists like this around until the red links are filled in, as places without articles inherently cannot be categorized and, therefore, the correct namespace for future articles are not as readily available to editors that may wish to create said article in the future (some articles that I have created have been due to stumbling onto red links). I have no objection to future deletion when the categories fill up, I would just hate to lose such a valuable tool for editors prematurely. I would vote delete for when the red links are filled (while I agree that Wikipedia should be optimized for readers over editors, it still is useful to have some deference paid to the people that are actually trying to put version 1.0 together, ie all of us) or if a good wikiproject is started. But for now, the one pro outweighs the cons. I would, instead, rather see the article have a "verify" tag to address concerns in the nom.  young  american  (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)  young  american  (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Suggestion - dump a copy in Talk:Gloucestershire/list or somewhere similar, and put a note on the talk page of the article. We get rid of another crappy listcruft article that's of dubious veracity and accuracy (I can tell you for a fact there's a load of places missing, just from referring to my AA road atlas, and I can't find some that are on this list), and a copy is retained so people can 'fill in the red links' (always an awful reason for keeping lists).   Proto    ||    type    14:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not a bad idea. It keeps the list around for editors without cluttering up the areas the casual reader might stray. If such a transfer was done for all lists worldwide, an AfD calling for mass-deletion of such lists would be in order and would get my support.  young  american  (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed Another possible location would be on the talk page of Category:Gloucestershire (see Category_talk:The KLF). --kingboyk 15:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Even better. That would maximize efficacy for editors and minimize intrusion for readers. I think you have found a wiki-Tao.  young  american  (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur, dump on talk subpage. Good idea for dealing with minimally useful lists. Sandstein 18:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, listcurft and per well explained nomination. --Ter e nce Ong 17:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The categories are specialised. With this you don't have to know whether a place is a town, village or city. Scranchuse 17:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Every county has one of these lists. They are the only overview in Wikipedia of all the settlements in a county. If this one needs a few corrections, please correct it. Nathcer 17:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Having spent all day yesterday sorting out the categories? You must be joking! If it's so important to you, you fix it. Now do you see the problem? Almost every list on Wikipedia is unloved and lags behind the categories because whilst a few people will come here and speak up for them few people actually adopt these articles and ensure they stay up to date and focussed. --kingboyk 18:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It doesn't matter who fixes it. Most likely someone will one day and even imperfect articles are useful - which is a rather important underlying assumption of Wikipedia. A list of British places won't need much updating once it has been corrected once. Piccadilly 20:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as useful list. Capitalistroadster 01:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not quite as good as the school lists but still worth keeping. -- JJay 02:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per comments by Scranchuse, Nathcer and Piccadilly. Simon Dodd 03:22, 1 April 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.