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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of condominiums in the United States[edit]

List of condominiums in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The article is completely unsourced and lacks an actual lead section. At the moment, most of the the entries in the list lack any sort of description and are simply links to the articles; those that do have descriptions are not sourced at all. The list is potentially so broad that it will be unmanageable to maintain, and as it is right now, the list is very scattered in what it covers. I think having only a category, with no list article, would be a much better way to deal with the subject. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep not a valid reason to delete any list in WP, all of which generally include links to other articles in WP. List is useful to readers on its face and as allowed by WP a complement to any categories that may exist. And the length of such a list is also no valid deletion reason; WP has lists with thousands of entries. Hmains (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Condominiums in the United States. Regarding page size, lengthy sections can be WP:SIZESPLIT into new articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. If we are going to have this we may as well have lists of gas stations or pharmacies.Charles (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Actually, Wikipedia has articles on both of those topics. See List of filling stations in North America and List of pharmacies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of individual sites rather than companies but that is bad enough.Charles (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the nonexistence of other lists has any bearing here. And please discuss the first two sentences of NOTDIR so we can better understand how that section might apply here. postdlf (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources, not even close to exhaustive, which we wouldn't want anyway. Not sure I follow the line of logic that this can't be a category, which would make more sense. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exhaustive of what? All condominiums that exist? Or just of our articles? If the latter, of course it isn't and no one would want that. If the former, we fix that by adding any missing articles. And no one's saying it can't be also be a category; quite the contrary. postdlf (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NOTDUP as complementary to Category:Condominiums in the United States and per WP:LISTPURP as a standard index of articles. The nominator's complaint that this is primarily a bare list of article links that lacks an intro section is tantamount to admitting that they are unfamiliar with both lists and deletion policy. Any list can be expanded with annotations (not that this is required), and we do not delete content for fixable issues. postdlf (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Postdlf, some people prefer navigation via categories some prefer via lists. Mrfrobinson (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTDIRECTORY. There are tens of thousands of condominiums in the United States. This is ridiculous. There might be an argument for spinoff lists, such as "list of co-ops in New York City" or something, but this is a good example of where a category is adequate and a list isn't needed. Montanabw^(talk) 20:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tens of thousands of condominiums do not have or merit articles, so the number that exists isn't relevant. postdlf (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's my point, a "list of condominiums" is absurd. Perhaps retitling this list into something that explains why the ones listed are notable would help... condos that have over 100 units, condos that house over 1000 people, whatever. I'd strike my delete !vote if someone wanted to propose a more descriptive and narrower title. Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • They're notable because they pass WP:GNG or some other notability guideline. And it's standard practice when we limit lists of X to notable X not to include "notable" or whatever in the title. Not including that in the title doesn't prevent us from limiting any list's entries to articles/notable topics, as we do with nearly all lists of people, buildings, etc. In titles we discourage self-references and encourage brevity. Maybe we should call all such lists "list of Wikipedia articles about...", but we don't, and titling disagreements (or the claimed implications of what content titles invite) certainly don't give rise to deletion rationales (or put a bit more cheekily, "article titles are not suicide pacts"). postdlf (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • • I'm not making myself clear, perhaps. My point is that there is no indicia of why these buildings are notable: size, population, architecture...? WP:NOT is clear, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random facts. I fail to see how this list is anything more than a glorified category. It's really just List of all condominiums notable enough for a WP article, and nothing more. Montanabw^(talk) 05:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • • Perhaps because you do not understand WP. By definition, a subject with an article in WP is notable or there would not be an article. Other items without yet an article can also be notable. Hmains (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've been here nine years, Hmains, let's not start insulting one another. The article seems to have no reason to exist and is nothing but a list of what's in the category. Insufficient. Add some context and maybe it might have some encyclopedic value. Montanabw^(talk) 05:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list of articles that's also in a category is sufficient according to well established consensus, and that's what most of our lists are. We'll just put you down as not liking WP:NOTDUP and the intro sentences of WP:NOTDIR, and move on. postdlf (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC) (and if you concede that it can be improved, you've already effectively withdrawn your own deletion !vote.)[reply]

• I don't think you can improve the situation, because it's a random collection of trivia. My vote stands. That said, evidence of improvement could change my mind. Is there any? Montanabw^(talk) 23:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • An index of wikipedia articles about a certain type of thing is a "random collection of trivia"? That's...interesting. Particularly since you think the same information ("these are the articles we have about condominiums") is valid when in the presentation format of a category. postdlf (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see how this list needs any particular sourcing. I can see that all of its contents have articles, which I have to presume fit the applicable notability and sourcing criteria. The list itself is neither trivia nor duplication. As others have said, it's by no means unusual to have a list of this size or nature. My only content gripe is that it ought to be called "List of notable condominiums in the United States" since by design, it excludes all but a few. That would also dispense with any WP:NOTDIR objections, which I consider poorly founded in situations such as this. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need to retitle it that to restrict it in that way, and in fact we expressly recommend not to do that. See WP:LISTNAME. postdlf (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral if it can be shown to be maintainable: It seems like a perpetually-outdated list waiting to happen, but maybe if it's limited to items that are potentially WP:GNG, it might have a chance at staying current, so I'm saying neutral instead of delete. It does, however, seem like it could easily out of control, and policy WP:NOTDIR overrides guideline WP:NOTDUP, both in priority and logically: WP:NOTDUP says it's OK for some catagories and lists to be on the same topic; it doesn't say there should always be both. It's worth noting that, if the list weren't limited to likely-notable entries, thousands would be an understatement; the list of organized condominium projects could be in the millions. --Closeapple (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing to comply with WP:Stand-alone lists (See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.) in that it lacks adequate selection criteria, lacks reference to sources that would establish criteria, and while it contains the necessary background information it lacks the references to sources for that background information, and thus it fails to provide encyclopedic context, producing an indiscriminate list that therefore breaches the policy at WP:NOT. --Bejnar (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain what you understand this list's selection criteria to be, and why you think those criteria are "inadequate" and unverifiable? Right now your comment is too general or abstract to indicate you're even talking about this list, and reads instead like boilerplate rather than specific criticism. postdlf (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2015 (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.