Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of primary route destinations in English Counties

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all -- Joolz 23:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Lists of primary route destinations in English Counties
List of Primary Route Destinations in Avon, List of Primary Route Destinations in Bedfordshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Berkshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Buckinghamshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Cambridgeshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Cornwall, List of Primary Route Destinations in Derbyshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Devon, List of Primary Route Destinations in Dorset, List of Primary Route Destinations in East Sussex, List of Primary Route Destinations in Essex, List of Primary Route Destinations in Gloucestershire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Greater London, List of Primary Route Destinations in Greater Manchester, List of Primary Route Destinations in Hampshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Herefordshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Hertfordshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Kent, List of Primary Route Destinations in Norfolk, List of Primary Route Destinations in Northamptonshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Oxfordshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Shropshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Somerset, List of Primary Route Destinations in Suffolk, List of Primary Route Destinations in Tyne and Wear, List of Primary Route Destinations in Warwickshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in the West Midlands, List of Primary Route Destinations in West Sussex, List of Primary Route Destinations in Wiltshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Worcestershire

This is a collective AfD for about two dozen Lists of primary route destinations in English counties. The List of Primary Route Destinations in Wiltshire came up for deletion a few days ago.

Each of these lists a couple of towns in the particular county without comment or context. WP:NOT a repository for original data or contextless links. Pilatus 13:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete all. No context. Each entry seems to be little more than a list of major towns, which should be covered by the specific counties' articles. KeithD (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Far from contextless lists, these are lists of primary destinations, the places you'll see on signposts on major roads, and they're grouped by county.  They're not all towns, because not all destinations are towns (see List of Primary Route Destinations in Tyne and Wear which includes Tyne Tunnel).  I honestly cannot understand what would cause anyone to wish to delete these excellent, useful list articles. As a simple "for instance" example of how they could be extended and improve the organization of information on Wikipedia, the destinations in each list could be annotated with the major roads leading to them, and the articles on these roads in turn could link to the appropriate lists of primary destinations. --Tony Sidaway Talk  14:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In the present state, these lists are absolutely contextless. On their own they are also original data, which does not belong here. One possible outlet for them would be to move the data into the county that they live in. Another would be to put them into a Wikiatlas with the roads that they are linked by. The format of an itinerary (i.e. a road or atlas in words) that you suggest is too clunky to be useful. Even if they were put in the form of an itinerary one would list the cities not by counties but by the road that passes through them. 129.215.195.81 15:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you get the idea that this is original research. Primary route destinations are designated by, and published by, the Department of Transport. --Tony Sidaway Talk  16:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Original data, Tony. This falls under 1.5.3 of WP:NOT. Pilatus 17:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * C'mon, Tony. This is a scattered travel guide. No one searching for encyclopedic information would look for or in these articles. It can't possibly serve any value to us. / Peter Isotalo 15:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Good god, are we going to start making lists for every "destination"? These places have articles. Or use a map! --Fang Aili 15:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Also, it is not clear as to what, exactly, a "primary route destination" is. If this is kept, I suggest changing the name to something else. --Fang Aili 15:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Primary route destinations are well defined in the UK and are commonly included in atlases, maps and gazetteers (and, you may not be aware, encyclopedias competing with Wikipedia do normally incorporate at the very least an excellent atlas). The designation is useful for, for instance, gauging distances on the English and Scottish mainland.  One would expect to find in a good encyclopedia tables of primary route destinations and their distances from one other.
 * I don't buy the proposition that "No one searching for encyclopedic information would look for or in these articles." In fact I find the suggestion simply incredible.  Were I looking for information about the political geography and transportation in a county, I'd expect to find a list of the primary destinations of the major roads, and this is precisely function that these really excellent articles provide. --Tony Sidaway Talk  16:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * These lists fail at all the points you raise. They are not maps, they are useless for estimating driving distance between major points or any of the points you mention – really, in which regard are they "excellent articles"? Pilatus 19:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. A bunch of arbitrary roadcruft lists. Wikipedia is not a directory. / Peter Isotalo 15:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all as useless, or (and only if someone is willing to do it) merge with their counties - do not keep --Doc (?) 16:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep information meaning, they can be kept (which I admit seems like overkill to have so many articles... or merged into List of Primary Route Destinations in the United Kingdom or Primary route destination, or some article. They likely don't deserve articles... but the information is fine.  gren グレン 16:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all I don't see that these context-free articles are useful. Dlyons493 16:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Wikipedia shouldn't need to be a handholding guide for someone trying to follow road signs in England. As written, the information is on it's way to becoming a travel guide, (i.e. "follow these signs, to get to the town you're looking for") which WP:NOT.
 * Delete - Control city primary route destination-cruft. I support a discussion of what control cities and PRDs are and how they're determined, but a big list of them is overkill. FCYTravis 18:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a travel guide, a list directory, a collection of source material, an indiscriminate collection of information, or any of a dozen categories which this bewildering display falls under. Roads are one thing, but this is insanity. Lord Bob 19:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as they are, but if they were changed into "List of towns in ..." series, I would have no objections. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:16, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all and perhaps put in a pile in one article I guess? Molotov (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]] 22:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft. Bunchofgrapes 22:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all - This is just a subset of List of places in xxxshire, and the main settlements in a county can be found in their corresponding county article. These articles are just repeated information in a place no one is going to find them. - Hahnchen 23:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all: Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. --Carnildo 23:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. No potential to become encyclopedic. Might as well list Street names in Bedfordshire containing exactly three vowels. (Which would, of course, be very useful to anyone who wanted to know which street names in Bedfordshire contain exactly three vowels). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all per Pilatus. As a second choice, if there is no consensus to delete these articles, merge and redirect to the articles on the respective counties. --Metropolitan90 02:10, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. Potentially informative, but useless as it is now. -- BD2412 talk 04:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with what? KeithD (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There's really no need to merge at all, this information already exists in the county article. - Hahnchen 23:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't imagine why this would be useful. Tuf-Kat 08:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all per Lord Bob and the person who forgot to sign their vote earlier. Wikipedia is NOT a how-to on planning a route. If you want to know how to get somewhere use a atlas, map or online planner. A random list of the places you see on roadsigns isn't going to help anyway. - Mgm|(talk) 09:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --G Rutter 09:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all as above --TimPope 21:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Quale 01:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge with Primary route destination, it is more useful to put the list in a single article. --Vsion 05:10, 18 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.