Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of doughnut shops (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 Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW as there's clearly no consensus to delete this and that position seems well-grounded in current policy. Andrew (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of doughnut shops[edit]

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

Guess what? This list was deleted once before in 2006, and was re-created earlier this year. While it has a slightly longer lead than the deleted versions, I feel the 2006 deletion nomination language still applies:

I cannot see the point of this list. It duplicates the category. It has no added value and doesn't even specify the country in which these shops operate. BlueValour 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That the nominator "can't see the point" is not a reason for deletion, nor is the complaint that the list could be improved through better organization (e.g. by country). Doughnut shops, and specifically lists of doughnut shops, have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, e.g. [1][2][3][4][5]. Pburka (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but I think the list would be of far more value if it was in an expanded table form with proper referencing for each list item - location, date of establishment, etc. Of course those things are available in each article and each article is in the category so the suggestion the category is duplicated is true to an extent. But as an aid to readers I think it has some value. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Founding dates and locations would take it above the category level. That way readers could find the articles that interested them. BTW the background info in the introduction doesn't really help. Anyone reading the list probably already knows what a doughnut and a doughnut shop are. Borock (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find that's the case with a lot of lists. You wouldn't be looking at a List of counties in Wisconsin unless you knew what a county was in that context and you were trying to find one in Wisconsin. I'm all for the "AFD isn't clean-up" mantra but I'm kinda glad this was nominated - hopefully it will get the fixin' it needs and the nominator's concerns will be resolved. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the time of the first deletion (before my time here) WP policy seemed to be that if a list and a category provided the same information the list was not needed. This is still the case here, but policy has changed so that now articles like this are kept. I agree with the original policy, but that is not a reason to delete this list. It is in accord with current policy, regardless of the fact that by clicking on the category you get the exact same thing. Borock (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Doughnut shops. WP:NOTDUP states, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." The list also has a functional purpose per WP:LISTPURP as a useful and functional navigational aid. Another matter is that descriptions can be added to the entries to expand the article, which cannot be performed with categories. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per sound analysis above, and thanks to User:Northamerica1000 for his impressive article expansion ([6]). Cavarrone 08:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000, Pburka, and others above. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:25, 22 October 2014 (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.