Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of housing cooperatives in Canada (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus (again). No prejudice to holding a merge discussion. ansh 666 08:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of housing cooperatives in Canada[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relist following a no-consensus closure the first time out. This is still a list of just ~~six~~ (update: winnowed to three through AFD deletion of entries whose notability was not properly sourced, with two further AFD discussions still open) housing cooperatives across an entire country with tens of thousands of them — but the list is literally just duplicating the content of Category:Housing cooperatives in Canada for no useful reason. While WP:CLN specifies that lists and categories can coexist for the same group of topics in certain circumstances, it also specifies that it is not always necessary or appropriate for a list and a category to always coexist for the same group of topics: there are sometimes reasons why both should exist, and sometimes reasons why one should exist while the other should not.
Very few housing cooperatives across Canada actually have either a strong enough notability claim under our inclusion standards for residential buildings, or enough reliable source coverage about them to clear WP:GNG — even most of the five articles that are here are actually questionable, with Rochdale being literally the only one that's actually standing on solid notability and sourcing ground — but Wikipedia's purpose is not to create comprehensive directories of every non-notable thing that exists, so turning this into a "completist" list of cooperatives that mostly don't have Wikipedia articles to link to would be a WP:NOT violation.
So with just six entries and no viable path toward expanding it, the list isn't actually serving (and can't be made to serve) any useful purpose distinct from what the category is already doing. Even the ability to convert the list into a sortable table, which was the reasoning behind the sole keep rationale in the first discussion, doesn't make a difference — with just six entries, three of which are in the same city as it is, enabling people to resort the list by city wouldn't change the list order enough to be a compelling feature. All resorting them by city would actually do is move Aaron Webster to the bottom and Princess Towers to the top while leaving the other four unchanged. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no more reason to have this than List of stata corporations in Canada or List of subdivisions in Canada (for the single family home lover) its a massive effort to build out anything reflecting a complete list and nearly everything on such a list would be completely non-notable. I'm going to look at seeking deletion of the entries here. Legacypac (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added short descriptions and locations, which puts the list one step above the category, and IMO no real justification for deletion has been provided. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN, which explains that there are some contexts where a list and a category should coexist and some contexts where one should exist while the other should not, is a real justification for deletion. A category of just six buildings, of which five are potentially deletable because their articles don't actually demonstrate them as notable at all, does not need a matching list just because a list can technically add the city each building is located in. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What part of CLN are you referring to? Also, until entries are deleted, your other point is moot. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The parts which explain the distinctions between situations where a list and a category are both warranted, situations where a list is warranted but a category is not, and situations where a category is warranted but a list is not. All three of those are possible in different circumstances — the rule is very definitely not that every category always needs to be automatically paired with a list of the exact same contents. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So because it's not mandatory, it should be deleted? That's not a very strong argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've presented substantive reasons why this is one of those cases where precisely replicating the category as a list isn't adding anything of value. If we're going to play the "boil your opponent's argument down to the most absurdly oversimplified version possible" game, then yours reduces to "we should keep it just because we can" — but the point is not about whether we can or can't, it's about whether there's a substantive reason why we should. A list of just six entries that precisely matches a category of just six entries, where five of the six entries are potentially deletable as failing our notability criteria and there's no viable prospect of either the list or the category gaining any new entries because there are very few exemplars of the topic that would ever actually pass our notability standards in the first place, is simply not useful. It's not about whether it's mandatory or not — it's about whether the list is providing value or not, which it isn't. Bearcat (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Clarityfiend and arguments at the previous AFD. This second nomination, like the first, has been a complete waste of time given that the complaint boils down to "this isn't useful" rather than "this violates guidelines or policies". The sole question I see is whether there are enough entries to merit the list, and if as the delete !voters above believe, some or all of these entries are ultimately deleted, well that hasn't happened yet, and when it does they'll just have to start another damn AFD, again making this one a premature waste of time. I'm always puzzled at the volumes of text people will write to go out of their way to get something deleted not because they think it is a policy violation or inappropriate, but just because they don't agree with the utility that obviously others see. postdlf (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, you're already wrong about "that hasn't happened yet" — the number of entries on this list has already gone from six to four just within the lifetime of this discussion, because two have already gotten deleted. And of the four that are still here, three have active AFD discussions underway. The best case scenario left is that this becomes a list of just three things, adding nothing to its corresponding category of the same three things that is also already technically CFDable as a WP:SMALLCAT — and the likeliest scenario is that this becomes a list of just one or very maybe two things.

And at any rate, the lack of a specific rule saying that we can't do something is not in and of itself a compelling reason why we should do it. The creator of this list, incidentally, is a person who got blocked from editing Wikipedia for perennially misunderstanding how this place worked: they routinely thought that every category always had to be paired with a matching list of the same contents, they routinely thought that every category that we have for people always had to be gender-segregated regardless of whether gender was relevant to the grouping or not, they routinely created single-sourced articles of the "X is a thing/person that exists, the end" variety with no thought given to notability standards, and on and so forth — so the fact that they thought this worth creating is not a priori evidence that I'm being unreasonable. The fact that this isn't explicitly violating any content rules is not in and of itself a reason why it needs to be kept — the utility of this list is far from blindingly obvious, so the onus is on you to prove that it's useful because X, Y and Z, rather than just asserting that somebody might think it's useful. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The fact that this isn't explicitly violating any content rules is not in and of itself a reason why it needs to be kept..." Without a compelling reason for deletion, it is actually. If you're conceding that this content is permissible, then the burden is on you as the deletion advocate to provide a valid reason for deletion and establish/demonstrate consensus for that result. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unexpandable list of just four things, of which three are up for AFD as not being properly sourced as notable at all. Four things already isn't enough to need a list at the best of times, even before you take into account that within a matter of days this will be a list of just three, two or one things instead of even the four that isn't enough. That's enough of a reason in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the list has now gone 4→3 from one more deletion. Bearcat (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The argument deployed by postdlf is not tenable. ("This second nomination...boils down to 'this isn't useful' rather than 'this violates guidelines or policies'.") Well, every Wikipedia article without exception must have first and foremost encyclopaedic content, per policy. And as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, [it] should not contain indiscriminate listse. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. That's quoting straight from policy again.

A list is not an end in and unto itself. Every list in Wikipedia is commonly supposed to be used to organize information. Quoting policy once more. So, what are we organizing exactly with a list of four (4) items? Would a list of one (1) be the limit? This list does not even serve for Wikipedia development purposes, as policy allows. -The Gnome (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The compelling reason for deletion is that this page is not necessary. Only 1-2 people viewed this page per day (until the AfD spiked that), if any. Many more people just went straight to the cooperative they were looking for. Ultimograph5 (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, further to which not much more can be said. Let's be gracious (four items on the list?!) and claim WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page was created in January of 2017 and still has very few listings available. Gameinfirmary (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a reason for us to write more articles on the subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any significant number of notable housing cooperatives in Canada to write articles about. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even 6 is enough to justify a category and a list. it has potential for growth. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there was "more" to the content, interested editors would have added "more." Yet as it appears there is no "more." In fact, since the AfD was tabled, the list got shorter and shorter. You say it might have "potential" for the future but, ahem, you know, WP:CRYSTALBALL. -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't six, there are three — and two of those three, further, are up for AFD as improperly sourced, so we're just days away from this being a list of one. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge info about individual co-ops, including those that were deleted, to History of cooperatives in Canada#Cooperative housing. There's just not enough to warrant a standalone list. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.