Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sister cities in New England


 * 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. Big Dom  16:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

List of sister cities in New England

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Merge. Nice list. But of no value separately. Merge (distribute) into appropriate cities. This stand-alone list serves no particular purpose. See WP:NOTDIR. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. These all tend to be "feel good" stuff which amounts to someone sending someone a letter now and then and a couple of people dropping in and announcing they are from x. In other words, puffery, which is fine. The world needs puffery. Even Wikipedia needs puffery. Just not at this level. Student7 (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. - WP:notdir does not apply on any of its seven points. WP:INDISCRIMINATE likewise does not apply on any of its seven points. The list has a scope and is of a factual nature. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose but Split. Maybe this article would be better served if it was split into different articles. JB82 (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge- This information is simply not useful in this form and redundant at best. Sister cities are already listed on the city articles. Having a list of all of them is simply waisted space. Many other lists compile many things not as readily available as sister cities. If this info is not already in the city articles as it should be, it should be put in them, and this article should be deleted. --MJHankel (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The sister cities program is notable, and there should be a list or lists of them. Unfortunately, a list of all of the cities in the nation would be too massive, and even this list seems too big.  I tend to agree with JB82 that it might make more sense to make state articles.  Those persons who are interested in the sister cities program generally-- i.e., checking to see which places have them-- pretty much do not have the time to do the one-by-one search that would come from limiting the information to the individual towns.  I've never understood that argument anyway.  Mandsford 22:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The fact that the nomination is only for this one page, and does not include the other 94 page in Category:Lists of twin towns and sister cities, suggests that the nominator is unaware of the importance that some people place on sister/twin city arrangements. Sister/twin arrangements are a notable topic, and there are far too many of them for one list, so Wikipedia has split the topic into articles (including this one) for specific countries, sub-national regions, states/provinces, New England. --Orlady (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Besides the fact that sister cities are a notable topic, I like how this list is regionally based. While I can understand the usefulness of state-specific lists for larger states (see "List of sister cities in California"), regional lists are a nice way to do it for smaller states. Something as specific and as small as "Sister cities of Springfield, Illinois," on the other hand, I find to be better suited for a merging discussion than this one on New England. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly not indiscriminate and consolidates disparate information into a nice single location. Because the New England states are relatively small, grouping them together also makes sense rather than separating by state. --Polaron | Talk 15:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Nicely done list, useful content, concrete standards for inclusion, limited in scope, nicely documented. Why the hell is this being nominated for deletion again? Carrite (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2011 (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.