Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in Idaho

List of places in Idaho

This information is better served by an existing category.Dlohcierekim 01:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Lists are able to include redlinks, which can help in development in that they give an indication on what articles have or have not been written. Also, hundreds of similar articles currently exist under Category:Lists of places.--TBCTaLk?!? 01:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TBC. Elf | Talk 01:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable list of notable places. Kirjtc2 02:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: lists are not redundant with cats, even if they describe the same thing. - CheNuevara 02:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At first I was going to post a delete comment out of moral support because I agree with the nominator's principle but thought it would unsuccessful because this would be one of many similar articles. To my surprise, I soon found there isn't a similar "article" for a lot of other U.S. states. That's probably a good thing. This is a category in article's clothing. The entire purpose of categories seems to be defeated by lists like this. If one is curious if there's an article required on a place, that's what looking in the category listing (or "search") can acheive. Agent 86 03:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How is this article any different from the articles in categories such as Category:Lists of places in the United States, other than that the other lists have tables with borders? Also (as quoted from WP:LIST), articles like these are "useful for Wikipedia development purposes... [as they] give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written"--TBCTaLk?!? 04:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Why is the nom picking solely on Idaho? Pick on some place useless to humanity, like Delaware. —ExplorerCDT 04:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]