Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rankings of retirement destinations 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 was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Rankings of retirement destinations in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list really offers no real encyclopedic information to this site. If someone really wants to know the best places to retire they can check out Forbes not Wikipedia. WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, we don't have articles for rankings of best places to live or to take a vacation, so this article isn't really unnecessary.  Jay  Jay What did I do? 00:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Sure is easier to list for deletion than create, isn't it? This is a high traffic article of great value to readers, qualities I'm sure you'd also like to remove from Wiki! I wrote this article in response to a request from another admin, hope she chimes in here, as I sure won't waste my time in the future. THANKS for bringing this up after numerous revisions instead of initially, so as to have maximum waste of time value. Pdecalculus (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * High traffic? Not really. Of great value to readers? That's pure opinion, and I'll take it with a large grain of salt as you're the creator of the article and its sole contributor. On what evidence do you base these claims? Regarding the first sentence of your remark, accusing someone of laziness because they nominated something for deletion is neither a sign of good faith nor an argument to keep the article. Speaking as an editor who's both created many articles and listed many for deletion, I believe both are valid means of improving the encyclopedia. An editor can create many good articles that obviously meet the inclusion criteria, while also sometimes coming across articles that one truly believes don't meet the criteria. Creation and deletion are not mutually exclusive enterprises; one can do both in the course of contributing to Wikipedia (and veteran editors often do, myself included). Your final comment is pure snark; the article has only existed for 9 months, and it's not the nominator's fault that they did not immediately become aware of its existence at the moment you created it. If they had, I'm sure it would have been nominated then. Regardless, it's nominated now, so if you really think it should be kept then address the nominator's rationale rather than retaliating with ad hominem attacks. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also please note I did not mention anything of the author in this deletion rationale so there is no reason to take this personal.  Jay  Jay What did I do? 23:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This list article fulfills all requirements for inclusion in the encyclopedia as a list article. The article does not fit in the paramenters of WP:INDISCRIMINATE of what WP is not. One could argue no article is necessary for inclusion on WP because you can always find information elsewhere - so this argument for deletion is null. The editors of this article have done a fine job of editing to bring together information in one place which can be independantly verified. Gmcbjames (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - abstract concept - ranking by what measure? It's simply a list of cities in alphabetic order, with no additional data, so it's additionally unclear what the ranking criteria authors are using, but even if it were, it is too subjective. It appears this list was culled from different rankings already published, so it's WP:OR on top of it. I can't think of any lists that contain just rankings or "best of" without solid criteria or sourcing (eg AFI's Top 100; list of places by population). Agree with nom - this is fit for a Forbes slideshow, not an encyclopedia. (Also "best places to retire in the US" is NOT an Idiomatic expression) —Мандичка YO 😜 07:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, though I don't think INDISCRIMINATE is the right rationale. I find this to be more a case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY or, more strongly, WP:NOTGUIDE. It also seems to involve quite a bit of WP:SYNTHESIS. I agree with JayJay's comparison of this article to a "ranking of vacation destinations" or "ranking of best places to live", topics which clearly fall outside of Wikipedia's scope. Just because you can pull together a list of something from various sources doesn't mean that it adds up to an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article. While it's certainly appropriate, in an article about a city, to mention that the city has been ranked by some notable source (Forbes, say) as one of the best places to retire, it's not appropriate to pull together lists from various sources and stitch them together into some overall ranking of retirement destinations. That's the part that reeks of original research and synthesis, and why I believe this isn't appropriate content for Wikipedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Actually a nice article, but not really for an encyclopedia since it is more opinon, or reporting other people's opinions, than facts. Some of the sourced material could be moved to retirement, but then someone is going to give that article a "not a worldwide view" tag if they haven't already. Borock (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - "Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like" from WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE, which is exactly what this is. Tarc (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Good to see some input on whether to keep or delete this article, although comments thus far on whether the article can be edited and kept are missing. WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:NOTGUIDE have been mentioned; the article is not a travel guide and does not fit within the parameters of the policy at this time of what WP is not. The article's subject and focus is on the topic of rankings of retirement destinations rather than a list of the top places to retire. The distinction is important, as a list of the best places to retire is a travel guide, while the topic of ranking of the best places to retire is not. The same would be true for best vacation destinations; a list would be a travel guide, while the topic of ranking of the best vacation destinations would not. The article includes a list of places as examples, clearly cited, to illustrate the topic rather than ranking places best to worst which may be considered a guide. As for WP:SYNTHESIS, there are no arguments of A + B = C. If there is, please state a specific example. While the information has been gathered, sources have been clearly cited so the article does not fall in WP:OR. If there is a specific example of original research, please state so. The article has been written from a neutral point of view with the five pillars of WP, something refreshing for a topic usually covered only by the media and advertisers. This is what WP is about. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A simple search of articles containing "ranking" in their title on WP will reveal numerous "ranking" articles, sports seem a favorite, countries' rankings are quite popular, and so are educational institutions. The title Rankings of retirement destinations in the United States may be more appropriate as Retirement destinations in the United States rankings in line with other "ranking" articles. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , by concurring with the delete recommendation of the nominator, we are stating our opinion that the article cannot be salvaged by editing or renaming the article. Additional comments are not needed. If anyone of us felt that were the case, we would say so through a keep vote and comment on how it should be improved. Many, many articles that are proposed for deletion are simply in bad shape, poorly written, unsourced, full of spam, etc, but they survive the AfD process because the subject meets the criteria for inclusion. As I indicated, I don't think there are any "ranking" articles that are not from a specific organization's criteria (eg FIFA World Rankings and other sports articles; World Health Organization ranking of health systems in 2000) or based on one statistic (eg literacy rates, GNP). There is the broader College and university rankings, but this is not a giant list of universities, but more a breakdown of the organizations and publications in each country that do these rankings. Additionally, all university rankings are based on specific criteria supported by data. When it comes to retirement destinations, the data simply doesn't exist. Nobody registers for retirement, there is no database of retirees: people move all over the place at different reasons at different times and there is nobody keeping track of them. Forbes and other sources are picking places based on criteria likely to be considered, eg weather, cost of living, community services, etc, but it's simply projection. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, everyone registers for retirement - it is called Social Security. There are numerous databases of information on retirees maintained by the Census Bureau and organizations such as AARP - so information is out there. We will have to agree to disagree. This article does not meet the threshold for clearly violating WP policy on what WP is not. Opinions and votes aside. Cheers Gmcbjames (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "For What Wikipedia is not, it is almost always possible to edit the article to bring it into compliance." (User:GRBerry/DRVGuide). The same is true for other policies such as WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. The article needs to be improved and expanded, I have made some minor edits to the article for clarity. On the article's talk page, the article had been going through the process which all articles go through, and this process should be allowed to proceed, as mentioned on the article's talk page -- in the vein of Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States. If the article is allowed to proceed, hopefully Pdecalculus will continue improving the article - after being bitten. This whole process could have been avoided, with potentially losing an editor, by first tagging the article for issues and/or by discussing issues on the article's talk page prior to submission for deletion. Gmcbjames (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You can receive Social Security benefits without retiring, I do. Borock (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per IllaZilla. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The article has been edited since nomination, taking into considerations of the discussion. The version nominated is here. Gmcbjames (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no substantial difference between the two, thus my comment above remains as-is. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As noted in my comments above, only minor changes were made - noting the change was a courtesy. In editing the article, I was able to take a closer look at the content with comments to delete in mind. The article needs revision and improvement - possible suggestions would be adding/expanding the list into a table divided by the sources (Gallup/AARP etc.) or by source under subsections as in Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States. Although the article could be a stand-alone list article, the subject better lends itself to being an article. Another option would be to remove the list section. With over 570 books on the subject of best places to retire on Amazon, the article has potential - if given time - to develop. Gmcbjames (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The best chance for a good article might be Retirement destination. Borock (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2015 (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.