Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supermarkets


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash talk 02:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

List of supermarkets
Very long, very red list, totally without WP:CITE. Thus if I came to this list looking for a Kenyan supermarket (for whatever reason) and saw Uchumi for example, I'd then have to Google "Uchumi supermarket" to verify that I wasn't being hosed. However, if I skip wikipedia entirely and simply type "kenyan supermarket" I get Uchumi as the number two hit. Thus we have long, difficult to maintain list that serves no purpose to our readers and is better done by an existing category. - brenneman (t) (c)  02:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and categorise per Brenneman. Saberwyn 02:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unnecessary list as far as I am concerned.--MONGO 02:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or Split - Lists are useful for things categories can't do, identify elements of a set for which no article yet exists. Citing is good of course, but as a list, it provides a place to start to create articles. List of Supermarkets in the United States is very valuable, and I suspect this, or a split version of this (with a List of Supermarkets in X would be as well. I am not a supermarket historian (though they do exist), and someone should be able to make this more effective still. dml 02:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete if you want to make a todo list, make a WikiProject, not a list. Peyna 03:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep by dml. Consider deletion again after most redlinks are gone and categorization can replace it. No need to make a WikiProject for this. Kusma (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to remove the redlinks, however in the past when I've attempted to purge lists it has met resistance. Also please note that where does already exist Category:Supermarkets.  I should have made that explicit in my nomination, sorry. -  brenneman (t) (c)  04:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was unclear. I meant "after most redlinks have become blue links", because only then the list will be redundant. It is the red links that currently serve as the source of information unrepresentable in categories. Kusma (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, how else can we quickly see which supermarkets still need articles. - SimonP 05:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you need something to write about, use Requested articles. This is a mainspace article in an encyclopedia, not (per Kusma) a defacto wikiproject, and to use it as such is a mistake. -  brenneman (t) (c)  05:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per SimonP. Herostratus 08:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but may need splitting up across continents. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 08:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the only use for this is as a to-do list of articles that need making, use Wikipedia: space. I wouldn't object if this were moved to Wikipedia: space and the redirect axed, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. What next, List of shops? --Ezeu 10:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Man In Black. --Squiddy 13:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but recommend Cleanup. Ve3 17:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is a list of shops, and there is no indication that the list is presenting supermarkets of importance -- just a list of supermarkets. Therefore, the inclusion criteria are only "is it a supermarket."  As for SimonP's question, the answer is RfA and user space and wikiprojects.  What credit to anyone or anything is merely a "list of articles not appearing in Wikipedia?"  That sort of thing is what namespace is for, not article space. (I.e. put it at Wikipedia:Supermarkets Needed, not Supermarkets, where there are none.)  Geogre 17:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Redlinks are a standard practice in the article space. Keep as a verifiable, userful, finite, and maintainable list. Turnstep 18:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but I agree with JIP that it may need some splitting up because it is huge! --Coolcaesar 19:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete (or Wikiprojectify, or userfy) as an inappropriate list. As others have already pointed out above, the appropriate tool for compiling a list of supermarkets with articles is a category; lists of topics without articles do not belong in the main namespace at all. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 21:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but recommend Cleanup! It's been around for three years it has been edited on an almost daily basis since then by many, many different people, so it's clearly useful.  The WP:CITE complaint is wrongheaded; so long as the national sub-pages or even the individual supermarket pages are cited, we're fine.  This is just an organizational page; the cites would go over 40k all by themselves. Mareino 21:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename as "List of food-retailing chains" or something. "List of supermarkets" sounds like a list of individual buildings. -- Mwalcoff 00:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Citations for a list of supermarkets? You are joking aren't you? Sumahoy 00:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why would I be joking? Welcome to Wikipeida, by the way. Edit this page and look right under where edit summaries go and see where it says "You must cite the sources for your edits so others can verify your work."  And in response to Mareino, please do re-read my nominatation, where I specifically use the red links as an example of a problem with citation.  Oh, and less than 150 edits so far this year is a fair few, but your "almost daily" comment isn't accurate.  -  brenneman (t) (c)  13:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh dear! Someone may have spent too long in an ivory tower. A list of supermarkets is a useful thing, but few other resources have one. Wikipedians can see what supermarkets there are in their country with their own eyes, and I'll trust them on the whole. i think you are being absurdly rigid and literalistic. Sumahoy 18:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not that much useful. SYSS Mouse 05:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Categories do not replace lists. CalJW 10:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but name could be improved. Rhollenton 18:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CLS. Kappa 04:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and split to make it easier to maintain for users familiar with a particular region. The information itself is easy enough to verify. Bmdavll talk 11:54, 6 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.