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. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 09:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Jerusalem[edit]

A category (particularly Category:Jerusalem) could handle the job this article is currently performing. -- tariqabjotu 01:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 10:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. From the looks of it, there are already relevant categories within Category:Jerusalem for this. --Hemlock Martinis 02:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is one seriously confused list. I don't regard a hospital or hotel as a place, for example. There is no added value over categories. BlueValour 02:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Having a category is not a reason to delete a list. This list is subsorted into hotels, monuments, and other buildings, which the category doesn't do.
• List has no definition or criteria, which means that every structure and location, past and present, is elegible for inclusion. List adds not context to the content of the categories already in place. Delete -- saberwyn 02:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a list made redundant by the presence of the category (which is subsorted into various headings and presumably can be further subsorted if need be). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with Tariqabjotu that a category would do better, and lack of sources or inclusion criteria hampers mainatainability. --Shirahadasha 03:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP I think the article could do better and should do better once a few more people who are interested in it interject more information. I say keep it. It seems worth the effort to me and could be a valuable tool for many people who run across it and hopefully expand it.. Artsojourner 05:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• more discussion Maybe it should merge with Jerusalem at some point in the future after it is fleshed out a bit. Artsojourner 05:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has five days' worth of discussion from the moment that Tariqabjotu nominated it. Responding to your suggestion of merging it with the article on Jerusalem - with all due respect, I think that's a fundamentally bad idea. Even fleshed out, this will still be a very long (unboundedly long, some might say) list, which is going to take up an awful lot of space in the Jerusalem article if someone puts it there. No other city article has a "list of places" attached, for reasons which I've always taken to be aesthetic as much as anything else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Artsojourner: This list was originally created as a new article in May 2005 because the original Jerusalem article was getting too long [1]. Thanks, IZAK 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the fact that there are other lists like this one eg List of places in London. Kyriakos 08:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. No reason to take this off WP. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because this is not simply an issue of "lists vs categories" (in any case, lists and categories serve different functions on Wikipedia and both are legitimate, see Wikipedia:List guideline and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes) and it's an integral part of the Jerusalem article and the ((Jerusalem)) template on this list's page. This list was originally created as a new article in May 2005 because the original Jerusalem article was getting too long [2]. Thus this list is part of an important integrated totality. To remove it, or even to move it around, would scar and harm BOTH the Jerusalem article and the ((Jerusalem)) template. IZAK 10:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's neither an integral part of the Jerusalem article nor an integral part of the ((Jerusalem)) template. I don't believe the article is linked from the Jerusalem article anywhere (except in the template) and it's only linked from the template because the article exists. Several of the links in the ((Jerusalem)) template are links to categories that work perfectly fine. It is true that the page was forked from the Jerusalem article due to its length, but that alone is not a reason to keep an article. -- tariqabjotu 13:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tariqabjotu: I am not following your reasoning. If you admit that it's linked the to ((Jerusalem)) template then it's linked to the Jerusalem article and yes the article exists (that's why you nominated it and that's why we are voting here) unless you nominated something that does not exist so then this vote should be cancelled ASAP, as we can't vote for things that do not exist. IZAK 13:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Might need work but no need to delete as it adds to the various existing pages mentioned above.Intinn^Talk! 10:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lists are redundant with categories if it is an unannotated list of bluelinks in alphabetical order. That is all a category can do. In this case we have a number of redlinks which probably should be made blue at some point. The list also sorts things by type of landmark, collecting all of it on one page, the category system needs to divide it into a series of subcategories to achieve the same. I'll agree that the list probably ought to have some more annotations to it, but this does not make the presence of the list unjustified. In its present form, the list does serve a purpose as a navigational aid, although I won't oppose converting the whole thing into a navigation box (template for use on all Jerusalem landmark articles) if annotations are not forthcoming. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a fair enough article, although in essence it is just a way of keeping a big list of the Jerusalem page, or a fork if you prefer. The Prince 11:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree 100% with Tariqabjotu that a category would do better or instead merge it with the article about Jerusalem because the way it is, does not seem very relevant and more like a wikitravel list (where I think it would be more useful) --JewBask 11:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • JewBask: This list was originally created as a new article in May 2005 because the original Jerusalem article was getting too long [3]. It is also an important part of the ((Jerusalem)) template. IZAK 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --YoavD 12:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--yidi 13:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unless every other list on WP is deleted, no argument was given as to why this is different than any other list on WP.--Shmaltz 14:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I just skimmed the page, but it seems it might be valuable to someone. If Wikipedia ever implements an ontology system along the lines of Semantic MediaWiki, then it should be possible to auto-generate a list like this (which would then be preferred over manual generation, for many reasons), but until that functionality is available, it will be hard to duplicate this kind of list. So why not keep? —Dfass 14:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I think it would be better to have a category Jerusalem and link to articles from there, not adding my keep or delete because on the one side I think having this is a good idea, but as a list one can fast loose overview Alf^Photoman 14:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sjakkalle et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lists and categories serve somewhat different though partially overlapping purposes. Any difficulties in maintaining a list are similar to the difficulties involved in maintaining the category; in fact, if you have one, it makes it fairly simple to maintain the other, and furthermore, if you have both, you are more likely to get a complete set including pages where somebody includes it in the list but doesn't categorize properly, or the other way around. Gzuckier 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep A list has the advantage of having each type of place broken down, while we could do that with subcategories that would result in a fair number of categories with few entries. Also, the redlinks are useful to know what doesn't have an article yet. JoshuaZ 16:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep For all the good reasons mentioned above, plus for someone planing to go to Jerusalem it will give him/her a complete picture of what is of interest; I already found some articles that I didn't know existed. I think every city needs to have such a page, not only London and Jerusalem; the servers can handle it. As to the work involved; that's what we're here for; almost seven billion of us. Itzse 16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as this is approaching WP:LC. dcandeto 16:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This is really a confusing approach: good cities; some mess-ups. bobbypirate123 Bobbypirate123 18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Revise and edit, respectfully. bobbypirate123 Bobbypirate123 18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep A category does not group things together, and to leave it in the [Jerusalem] article would make it insufferably long. (PS. Why do people always seem to fall back on the strict laws of whatever manual-of-style is "in" on the given week only when it is in regard with someone else's religion or icons thereof? Ever wondered?)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockneyite (talk • contribs)
• strong keep per all the above (and delete the category for what its worth!) Jcuk 21:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep but... I would split this into two articles... one on "Neighborhoods of Jerusalem" and another on "List of buildings and structures in Jerusalem" The rationale is that Jerusalem is one of these ancient historical cities where there may be articles about very specific notable places. Also, I believe there is a wikipedia essay or policy on the difference between lists and categories and how both can be valuable in wikipedia if used correctly. MPS 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes MPS 23:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Just like there are other articles on list of places for other city's. Shlomke 00:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Good use of grouping. Beginning of description of individual sites. Categories are not good for these. Fg2 01:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep needs expansion and elaboration, but lists and categories each have a place for organizing information. Alansohn 02:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Other than with the category, the items which have not yet been initiated encourage the creative work of Wikipedians. The Jerusalem article is already very long and it is only natural that for such a large and for many also "central" city as Jerusalem that additional articles should evolve. gidonb 02:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A category could handle the job of this list? So could a paper map. So what? Certain editors prefer using categories. Others prefer using lists. Why should one try to impose its preferences on the other? Also, the list meets WP:LIST by aiding navigation and aiding in the development of new articles. -- Black Falcon 03:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A category could handle the job of this list? So could a paper map. So what? I hope that was a joke; for obvious reasons a paper map is not possible. There are decent arguments out there for keeping this article, and so there is no need to resort to a comment like that. -- tariqabjotu 06:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please accept my apologies. It was an unwarranted comment and I have revised my argument so that it is more relevant to the issue at hand. -- Black Falcon 06:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - useful. Savidan 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Danny-w 15:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Of course we should keep it. If it is "confusing" then make it less confusing, don't delete it. Guy Montag 06:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this lists vs categories issue has been discussed hundreds of times. It looks like each new wikipedian with particular dslike of some list has to drag us thru the same talk over and over again. `'mikka 19:42, 2 March 2007 (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.