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 delete. I have read the argument from Eastmain which is not unreasonable, but it does not refute the fact that the list is at present an incomplete and unannotated list of bluelinked articles, duplicating a category exactly (apart from being incomplete). Since the consensus appears to be to delete this article, I cannot let that argument overrule it. Note that recreating an article which addresses the concerns given in this AFD will not run afoul of WP:CSD#G4 on recreations, and if anyone wants the content as a basis for further work just ping me or another admin and it will be provided to you in some form. (If you request it from another admin, just point them to this AFD.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of railway stations managed by Southern[edit]

List of railway stations managed by Southern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested WP:PROD. This list is not particulary informative, and the topic would be better served by a category. Now that we have Category:Railway stations served by Southern, which performs a very similar, although not identical role, this would appear to have been achieved and therefore this page can go. (That the list is incomplete is not a reason for deletion in itself: it would be a straightforward but dull task to complete it.) RFBailey (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Redundancy is not always a bad thing. If a complete list of stations managed by Southern can be found and added to this list, then any redlinks would indicate either an article that needs to be created or inconsistency in naming articles. But it would be less obvious if a station were missing from the category, because categories don't have redlinks. Lists and categories can coexist. --Eastmain (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The list of railway stations served by Southern will include all of those that it manages. This list id therefore redundant. Duplication adds to the workload of the project and leads to them being out of synch with each other. Furthermore, lists need to be compliant with WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Categories are preferred to lists. Olana North (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the list of railway stations served by Southern include all of those that it manages, but it also includes others, so this list is not redundant. I think this is a good example of where a category would work better than a list, but such a category does not exist. Klausness (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I figured I'd just go ahead and create the category and add everything on the list to it. This resulted in someone leaving me a note on my talk page suggesting that I stop doing what I was doing and discuss it on WT:RAIL. I'd already added everything on the list to the category, so I added a note about what I'd done to WT:RAIL. Klausness (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am all for the redundancy of categories and lists, but only when the list provides something that the category does not. Since this is merely an alphabetical list with no additional content, it serves no purpose that I can see. -Verdatum (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ...and as for the AfD, if the folks at WT:RAIL don't like the new category, I guess get rid of it again, and Week keep on this article, since it's not redundant. If the category is kept, then Delete on the article, since it's redundant and adds nothing to the category. Klausness (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, category is sufficient and this list adds nothing to it. Stifle (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per eastmain. Mathmo ^Talk 08:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - category is sufficient, more complete, and easier to maintain.  Frank  |  talk  15:09, 5 May 2008 (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.