Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rainbow crossings

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 merge‎ to Rainbow crossing. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of rainbow crossings[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)

That something is a notable topic, doesn't mean that we need a list of examples of that something. One province (equivalent to a US county) in Belgium alone had 24 of them by late 2022[1], there are many more in Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria (multiple cities have more than one of them), ... Fram (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Sexuality and gender, and Lists. Fram (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lol the list at Rainbow crossing is more comprehensive than this one. That needs a lot of work to not just be an example farm – concur that there are (happily) far, far too many of these to be able to catalogue them here. Reywas92^Talk 13:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid deletion reason, Wikipedia is a work in progress and you are encouraged to be bold and help fix it and we don't have a deadline to work to complete, which is why the dynamic list template even exists to point out that it can and will grow. Raladic (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject as a whole should satisfy WP:NLIST since these crossings are discussed as a group or set in the context of the whole LGBT movement. While the list is currently incomplete (and likely will never be comprehensive), there's potential for improvement with further editing. The list itself doesn't warrant deletion just because it's a work in progress. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Rainbow crossing as while the list has been significantly improved, it can fit nicely in the main article without need for a WP:SPLIT at this point. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the discussions on the talk page on Rainbow crossing, the page was getting unwieldy and thus it was suggested to spin off a List article that actually lists some of the crossing, which is what this article is. It passes WP:NLIST as these crossings are a symbol and spreading around the world to celebrate the LGBTQIA+ and some in part as protests against restrictions and thus the listing provides encyclopedic value to show the spreading and localities as a stand-alone list to accompany the main article.
Please dont tear down the house while it's being built, Wikipedia is a Work in progress. Raladic (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In no reasonable interpretation of NLIST does being "...a symbol and spreading around the world..." matter. We're not tearing down the house while it's being built; we're weeding the garden. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the claim of meeting NLIST above, I see no evidence of that. After a look, I can't really find any sources discussing these as a set. Keeping a record of every one of these gets into unencyclopedic WP:NOTDIR territory, especially considering the sheer number of them. The main article can easily accommodate some discussion of the history, like the first, or maybe installations in major cities, but if you need to spin off a list for such a short article (and this is a short article...barring WP:PROSELINE style notes of installations, which is basically already a list, there is very little general information), then something is seriously wrong. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of articles discussing them as a group - [2], another talking about how the crosswalks are being attacked under false pretenses such as this case in London [3], another about many crosswalks in the guardian [4]. New York Times about claimed safety issues - [5]

And that was just a few hits from the first page of searching. Raladic (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of those, only the first one is even remotely applicable. The rest either talk about the crosswalks in general, which goes to notability of the main article, not the list, or they're about a more general topic and so don't contribute. That first source is reasonable, but it's just one, and it's clearly got a POV to it. And there's no reason why some of that information can't be added to the main article...I see some stuff about official support, etc. There's nothing that warrants this laundry list. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the last link of The NY Times article that also addresses them as a group.

There’s also this article discussing them as a group that has subsequently been cited [6].

All of which give credence to WP:NLIST as a group in order to keep the main article on topic of the topics and keep the listings here, which was also the consensus on the talk page of the main article.

I have expanded the main article with a new specific section on some of the attacks and vandalism against them as a symbol and also added it as a relevant mention in the lead of the list now. Raladic (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Raladic. Satisfies WP:NLIST and being actively worked on. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't satisfy NLIST. And being actively worked on doesn't change its notability. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm from West-Flanders, Belgium, the rainbrow crossings are so common. We have 26 and there will be more in the future. None of them meet the list. Tomaatje12 (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic attack on IP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ooh, an anon IP apparently familiar with our terminology? Not suspicious at all! By all means, comment under everyone 'keep' contribution, a surefire way to win hearts and minds! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] And do not edit other users' comments! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many of these are already covered in Rainbow crossing so this serves as a content fork. None of the crossings have their own articles (each one is referenced by a single citation of varying depths of coverage), so the notability of the list as a whole is unclear. Ajf773 (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: the most notable ones into Rainbow crossing. With respect to WP:LISTN, we also aren't an indiscriminate record of every rainbow crosswalk. I think there is room for expansion in the main article with the inclusion of some of these. Curbon7 (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reworked the list by addressing one of the main points made in the discussion here against it, which is to limit the scope so that it doesn't become an indiscriminate list of all rainbow crossings in existence.

I compared to other lists and found that the most fitting criteria for inclusion in the list is the first in a country or state, or otherwise notable (though for now I didn't actually include any "otherwise notable"), so that it becomes a sort of chronology of the spread of them around the world.

I have added a column to the list to define what each of the listings notable inclusion criteria is, which helps add additional encyclopedic value for the chronology and I believe is better suited to be in the List article, rather than creating WP:UNDUE weight if it was in the main Rainbow crossing article.

I believe this should address the concern of it being indiscriminate and as a whole, helps address the criteria of why the stand-alone list is of value per WP:NLIST, along with many other such lists on Wikipedia (such as first tall structures/skyscrapers, first mountain ascent, first office holders (various lists on that one), aviation firsts, first films by country, List of LGBT firsts by year to list a few).

As it is a list in progress, I still don't make any claim to completeness, but hoping to have some time to keep adding to it and others will help expand it as well.

For those of you that had concerns about the article, please take another look at the reworked list to reassess. @Fram @Reywas92 @Ajf773 @Curbon7 Raladic (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would much prefer a merge to Rainbow crossing in this case. Rather confused why undue weight would apply here, especially because, again, the bulk of the content of the main article is already a selection of firsts and notable ones. There's no need for separate articles here. Reywas92^Talk 05:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a short list of notable examples belongs in the main article, if thoroughly checked (e.g. in the list at AfD, the supposedly first permanent one in Belgium isn't the first one at all, and this claim isn't made in the reference anyway). But if that list becomes too long, then it should be pruned, not split off. Fram (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies about the Belgium error, the article made it look like first, I have removed it now as I found another from Ghent that says it was permanently installed before that in 2020 based on an article I found, but it also doesn’t claim it is the first permanent in Belgium, so might need a native speaker that can find a native article as my English search skills seemed to have come up dry.

The other country articles in the list were more explicit that they were firsts.

And thanks for your comments and suggestions, I just originally boldly split out the list as that seemed to have been the consensus at the articles talk page itself as felt it might make the main article too big. But after the discussion in he AfD here now, I think a merge and redirect back to the main Rainbow crossing seems to be the consensus. I will perform the merge once an admin closes the AfD discussion. Raladic (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to rainbow crossing. If we're just going to mention the most important rainbow crossing, you can do that in a history section in the main article, just mentioning firsts or likewise. This list really doesn't need to exist. AryKun (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that this does not pass the WP:NLIST barrier. Anyone interested can add any info to the Rainbow crossing article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rainbow crossing. Since the primary article is not too large, this list is pretty much a WP:CONTENTFORK. I would suggest rewriting the Rainbow crossing#History section to make it less list-like and transferring this list into a separate section. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rainbow crossing for the same reasons that have been outlined above. There's no need for this list to be a standalone list. It may be appropriate to reduce the number of listings slightly for the merge; I don't think there's much value in attempting to create a comprehensive list of rainbow crossings. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2023 (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.