Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of districts of India/archive2

List of Indian districts
Still a featured list.

Too many redlinks. Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Orissa, Mizoram (no district bluelinks), Chhattisgarh have the majority of redlinks, compared to several other places, which have none. Also, although not strictly part of the list, several of the links to headquarters are also red. The web references should also have a date of access. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think the number of redlinks is entirely within reason for a featured list. The criteria do not set a maximum, although anything with more than a quarter redlinks would be bad, IMHO. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, I think the percentage of redlinks is sufficiently small to keep the list featured. It's about what? 5%? I don't see any reason to remove a good list only because it has a few red links. Afonso Silva 10:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My issue was not the fact that there are a small number of redlinks; my issue was that the redlinks are all concentrated in the districts of Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Orissa, Mizoram and Chhattisgarh. At the redlinks been randomly scattered about the list than I wouldn't have nominated it. The way they are now, there is a systematic bias in Wikipedia's coverage of Indian Districts because the overwhelming majority of redlinks are in those five districts. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you really think that the article is systematically biased against Orissa? Honestly?  We don't have an equivalent list for Sri Lanka - should that prevent this list being featured? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The list fits all the criteria and the number of redlinks I saw is not too large. Also, I'm not entirely convinced this is the best way to deal with systemic bias. You may wish to let editors at WikiProject India know of these patches in coverage instead. The formatting of the references should be fixed, though. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 19:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)