Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of eruvin

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. There was a very clear consensus that this page should be kept. It is also, incidentally, particularly well sourced. (Non-admin closure.) BlueValour (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of eruvin

Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Delete. Bstone (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Which aspect of NOTDIRECTORY are you saying this falls foul of? --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

3 and 5. Also WP:NOT#FAQ 4. Bstone (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's plainly not for business purposes, nor is it a cross-categorisation. And NOT#FAQ seems entirely irrelevant to this list. In terms of NOTDIRECTORY, each of the constituent parts forms a coherent part of a notable topic, and the list is extensively referenced from RS, demonstrating notability comprehensively. I therefore can't help but disagree with the nomination and will have to opt for keep (below). --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your RS argument, I quote from WP:NOT, "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Bstone (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's as may be, but you've not presented a valid argument for deletion. --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an indiscriminate listing of information which has no encyclopedic value. If I am wrong please tell me why it has encyclopedic value and why it is notable. Bstone (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What's indiscriminate about it? --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per my arguments above. --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per arguments presented at previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of communities with eruv. M0RD00R (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Is not indescriminate, but has very specific criteria for inclusion, and the subject is notable. Just because it's a list of places doesn't make it a directory. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. List articles need more than just links. Otherwise, this falls afoul of the Wikipedia is not a directory policy. If some work could be done on this page to make it have some text, then I would reconsider my opinion. Unless it has a major rewrite, it's a policy violation. Corvus cornix_talk 22:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —M0RD00R (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep because: (a) It's a key partner to the Eruv article providing real-world examples. (b) It cites 192 reliable sources and references! (c) It is a legitimate part of Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures, and (d) is most certainly not a "directory" of anything as it satisfies all the criteria of WP:Lists. IZAK (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, normally I'd prefer to see simple lists converted into categories if possible; however, the extensive sourcing in this case would be difficult to accommodate unless a blurb about each eruv were added to each article in the list and sourced and each associated article added to an eruvin category (which is still another option, imo, if someone wants to go through all that trouble converting the list). --MPerel 16:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Though the article would be more informative if it were organized by the date each eruv was created, it still has a great wealth of information that justifies an article. Jon513 (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep An encyclopedic list is a good encyclopedia article--YY (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Valid member of Category:Lists of religious buildings and structures and much better sourced than most of the others — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to be a classic Information-type list as per WP:LIST Avi (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2008 (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.