Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of small all-ages venues in the United States


 * 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

List of small all-ages venues in the United States
This appears to be a list that nobody is ever going to need and appears to have been created just for the sake of having such a list. In other words, it is listcruft. Stifle 19:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The title is clumsy, but I could see someone looking for this. Keep Jcuk 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The title makes it clear that this will include every church hall, every function room, every meeting hall in the whole of the USA. If there are less than a hundred thousand potential entires I'd be amazed.  If this is for notable small venues, then a category will do the job just nicely. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 19:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list has the potential to include every school auditorium, city park, and family living room in the United States as they all qualify as locations where people of all ages may come together for an event (OK, some city parks may not qualify as small;-).  --Allen3 talk 20:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. What is a "small venue" anyway? And why should we even care?! --kingboyk 21:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Delete as per nom. I have my doubts about the articles listed here, too.  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to List of notable all-ages venues or something similar --HasNoClue 21:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; almost meaningless list, and it's hardly extensive (5 items). smurray  inch   e  ster  ( User ), ( Talk ) 22:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I created the page so I'll chime in here. I think it could be narrowed down to "notable" all-ages venues, and I understand that Wikipedia is not a random collection of lists; however, Wikipedia is full of lists that, while not of interest to everyone, are of interest to a very small subculture -- or even to a small fraction of that same subculture. For example, List_of_black_metal_fanzines. Believe me, a list of notable all-ages venues in the United States is a list that would be of interest to hundreds of people -- not just bands trying to set up shows at such venues, but also people interested in setting up similar venues in their towns, people writing about such venues (when local print media write about such venues, they invariably treat them as unique oddities), and so forth. I'm surprised that Wikipedians are acting like listings in Wikipedia are supposed to be popularity contests -- the "why should we even care" comments above, for instance. Just because you personally are not interested in a topic doesn't mean that the topic is not of use to anyone at all. And, the reason that the list is not extensive should be obvious -- the community has not had a chance to add to it yet. -- Jamiem
 * The number of black metal fanzines is small (and anyway I'd burn that as cruft) but the notable small venues can be collected in a category, whihc will allow subcategories by region and so on. As a list it has two major problems: spamming with non-notable venues, and the absolutely vast number of potential includees. Go with a category, they work wel for this kind of thing. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. If this ends up being deleted, I may create a category, or better yet, write a new article about the all-ages punk rock phenomenon in the US. Without this informal network of show spaces, many bands and other performers would not be as well known as they are. IMHO it's worthy of an article. -- Jamiem


 * Delete and turn into a category. The only one I can really think off off the top of my head is 924 Gilman. FCYTravis 00:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Move per HasNoClue. Rory096 00:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jamiem who has made a very persuasive argument. -- JJay 00:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jamiem who does have a good argument. Wikipedia is full of minutiae lists, and this one is actually a bit more useful than most.Somrandomguy 18:12 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Earlier listcruft shouldn't be used to justify more listcruft. Eusebeus 08:41, 4 February 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.