Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities in Texas

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. WP:SNOW , May I suggest the nominator read the various policies and guidelines concerning deletion before nominating another article? yandman 21:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in Texas[edit]

Completely pointless and redundant with categories Nerfari (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of this nomination User:Nerfari had 30 edits.Smallman12q (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- and? Nerfari (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you need to have more knowledge of policy before you start trying to enforce it. That comes with experience editing and participating. The burden is on you as the nominator to give a valid reason to delete this article. Also, no matter what reason you give, somebody is going to disagree with you, and you should not take it personally. --L. Pistachio (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - "Completely pointless" is not a valid argument for deletion. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "serves no purpose"? Nerfari (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And how about you come up with an actual reason for keeping it? What is it for? Nerfari (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Serves no purpose" is still a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please provide a sufficient argument as to why you feel the article should be deleted, and then I'll bother to expound upon my rationale. Also see Category:Lists of cities in the United States by state—if you want this one deleted, you'd have to get rid of the whole lot, otherwise there would be a significant gap in coverage. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Look I have no personal feeling of dislike towards this list, I just don't see why you need to have it. It requires maintainance and it doesn't do anything. Nerfari (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, "doesn't do anything" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please see Wikipedia's deletion policy. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Invalid nomination reason.Smallman12q (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you afraid of here? Nerfari (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just one person could assume a little faith here and tell me what it's here for. If I'm wrong I'll withdraw but if you are going to try and bulldoze me instead of persuading me... Nerfari (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Being redundnant to a category is not a reason for deletion, and in my view, nominator hasn't provided any convincing reason that it should be deleted. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as I know, we have something like this for every state. They do serve a purpose, and I agree with all of the above that there is no objective reason to delete this. --L. Pistachio (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (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.