Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIPS place code: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
restoring old comments |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result of the debate was '''keep top page; delete sub pages'''. '''[[User:Kilo-Lima/Esperanza|<span style="color:green;">K</span>]]'''[[User:Kilo-Lima|ilo-Lima]]|<sup>[[User talk:Kilo-Lima|(talk)]]</sup> 13:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
===[[FIPS place code]] and its subpages===
This is just the ''tip'' of the iceberg: I look at [[Special:Newpages|New Pages]], and was startled to see entries like "[[FIPS place code/Minnesota]] ('''390,351 bytes''')" and "[[FIPS place code/Arkansas]] ('''311,887 bytes'''). These are HUGE subpages of lists of geographic codes. The creator is stacking 'em up, one by one. Wikipedia is NOT a primary source, and it's NOT a bunch of lists. [[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 07:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Line 5 ⟶ 11:
* '''Comment''' Wow, I really don't know what ot say. [[User:TKE|<
:'''Keep''' It's a government report, relevant information, hell I paid for it. [[User:TKE|<
*'''Comment''' How about: the top [[FIPS place code]] article is good info and the subpages are deletable as [[WP:NOT|not an indiscriminate collector of information]]. [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 08:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''': It's sad to see so much effort go to waste, but it's right in [[FIPS place code]] that the original list can be downloaded from an official (presumably up-to-date) source. An article ''about'' FIPS place codes, maybe keeping a manageable amount of place codes as examples, would be an excellent idea. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]]
Line 15 ⟶ 21:
*'''Comment''' Wikisource is the place for primary sources, so if you want to put this on a wiki, put it up there and link it from here. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] 17:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' an article on the FIPS place code system as such, if it is a notable reference system. '''Delete''' the codes themselves, which do not belong in an encyclopedia. — [[User:Haeleth|Haeleth]] <small>[[User_talk:Haeleth|Talk]]</small> 17:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
* '''Transwiki''' to Wikisource [[User:Swatjester|<
* '''Delete:''' we add no value to the world by copying such an immense amount of numeric data; what we do is create a reference which will become out-of-date and therefore misleading. A reference to the primary source is the way to do this. '''Keep''' the top-level article. — [[User:Johantheghost|Johan the Ghost]] [[User talk:Johantheghost|<sub>seance</sub>]] 18:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep top-level article,''' remove tables from its, '''delete subpages.''' FIPS place codes are important in the geographic and demographic industries (such as the Census Bureau, and Claritas where I work), and not otherwise noteworthy. A good two-paragraph article would be appropriate here; the raw tables are not. WP is not for primary sources, excess level of detail, etc. [[User:Barno|Barno]] 21:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep top-level article,''' remove tables from its, '''delete subpages.''' Per Barno and Johan the Ghost. —''[[User:R._Koot|Ruud]]'' 13:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' I'm with that. A bot for this would be nice, I didn't even know about government produced rankings. [[User:TKE|<
*'''Argument in favor by the author''': As I am the person who has created this, I would like to make the case why it should stay as is.
Line 34 ⟶ 40:
:*''Where do you draw the line?'' How about "none at all?" Seems simplest.
:*''Most of the bloat comes from having to code them for HTML'' It doesn't matter whether it comes from too much starch in their diet or from not enough exercise: they are still a form of raw data that is NOT encyclopedic, IS a primary source of data best handled by an external link to the data supplier, and is grossly inappropriate here. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 21:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Will someone please tell me WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON HERE? People are saying they think these sub pages are not appropriate to this encyclopedia, so I decided to mark them for deletion. Now I'm being told that what I'm doing constitutes vandalism and I'm going to be blocked! I had the impression nobody wants these pages because they're too long, they're not encyclopedia content and they constitute original material. I disagree with all of these but I decided not to fight the issue.
Line 48 ⟶ 52:
[[User:Rfc1394|Paul Robinson]] 22:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but Paul Robinson's contributions are appreciated. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 00:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>
| |||