Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missouri locations by per capita income

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 Needs updating and sourcing Put the BOTS to work!Mike Cline (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri locations by per capita income

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

WP is not a indiscriminate list of statistics. Mattg82 (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on procedural grounds only: it does not make sense to pick off this article via a one-off nomination, when there are similar articles for every U.S. state:

et cetera, et cetera. If part of a broader nomination, I would consider change my opinion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Check out WP:OSE - that there are other articles in existance is not an argument against deletion.ManicSpider (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing a problem here. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all According to our most basic policy Wikipedia:Five pillars "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." It would however be useful to know how the communities on the list were chosen: it ought to include all cities and towns on which we have articles--which ought to be all of them. The source is obviously the census data in the individual articles. (that should be stated also). DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's no "keep all" about it. The nominator only brought up this article. No keep vote, because the article really is a piece of crap, as the nominator says-- no sourcing, no context, no real improvements since the cut and paste was done back in 2005. Some of the state articles listed above show what an article of this type can look like. Looks like the author was "inspired" by this [1] or something similar, and simply forgot to tell us where he or she found it. If nothing else, maybe someone can throw the number "2000" in the article. Mandsford (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my note below. Shadowjams (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unsourced indiscriminate list of statistics.ManicSpider (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note - This discussion ought to consider all of these articles as one, since the rationale is the same, but I'm not sure if above comments reflect that understanding. If you comment below please indicate to which articles your comments apply (all, some, etc.). Thanks Shadowjams (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on all - This is borderline WP:DIRECTORY, and as a practical matter I wonder if these lists will ever be updated to stay even reasonably current. That's a huge logistical nightmare that bothers me. On the other hand, there's actual content that's verifiable, and not too outside of the normal notability guidelines, although I would say it's borderline. There needs to be some limit to the permutations of lists allowed (Lists of counties by head of cattle). Shadowjams (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, someone should table-ize these lists too if they're kept. Shadowjams (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and ask the author to add the appropriate U.S. Census refererences, and improve the article to bring it in line with similar articles about other states. Jim Heaphy (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,These are not "indiscriminate lists". They need to be referenced, and put into tables, but I don't see the point in deleting them. (They could be updated, it's just copy/pasting).Smallman12q (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The problem with these lists is that they are far out of date and not likely to be kept up. I picked two at random: Colorado and Kansas. The data from Colorado was entered in August 2005—4½ years ago. Kansas data was entered in February 2005—more than 5 years ago. Neither has been updated since those dates. At least they should have a disclaimer at on the page stating the date of the information. Too bad that Wikimedia software does not have some sort of spreadsheet or database function where users could enter data and the pages would be automatically created. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we should indeed have a way of updating these--at present, I think it would take a dedicated bot. In the meantime, we should keep these, for they are much more likely to be updated than reconstructed. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this is the wrong forum for an extended discussion, but what are your thoughts about a notice that the information may be out of date (either the template we have for that, or a more informal note)? Shadowjams (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favor of some sort of template that could be posted at the top of the page stating that the information was current as of {{{insert date}}}. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because they are a challenge to maintain in their present state does not validate, nor provide a valid reason for their deletion.Smallman12q (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a relevant factor. You might not share it, but practical considerations are often considered at AfD, and on close-cases, like massive list-forks, they're quite important. Shadowjams (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are these considerations the de facto standard, or is this policy? (I'd like to stress that they are difficult, but not impossible to maintain. A bot would probably be the best approach.)Smallman12q (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL#REASON. I'd support a bot to update these too (although if it's material that only a bot can add, it's suggestive of WP:DIRECTORY), but nobody's done that in a number of years. Shadowjams (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2010 (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.