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. (non-admin closure) Dane2007 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in China

[edit]

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

The list has nothing more but the names of random, ordinary villages and some very strange question marks following each name. China has 1,865,247 villages according to this as of 1998 (in Chinese, probably not a very reliable source but at least an estimate). There are currently only about 50 stated on the list, which is about 0.02% of what it should be covering, if it is a real encyclopedic list. Most of its internal-linked articles are stubs. In short, people are not going to learn much from it. WdS | Talk 15:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: My apologies. WdS | Talk 15:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I have copy edited the article to remove the unnecessary added "???" question marks that were previously in place. Made no sense. Otherwise, deletion of this article (that I created) comes across as a simplified solution compared to the notion of article expansion, unless the solution is to remove valid starting points for easily-expandable articles. If people feel that deletion of this content is best for the improvement of available geographic knowledge to the world, then delete it. Of course, this is not actually congruent with Wikipedia's overall goals of actually building an encyclopedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions; suggested red-link for a new delsort category. Geography is important.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

delete although in theory a plausible list topic in practice there is no way this list can ever accurately represent its topic. It’s not just that it is incomplete but could get there eventually. It is impossible. It would require too much editor time and simply not fit in a readable, editable article. I notice that the US mostly does them by state but even provinces could be too large a subdivision for China. Certainly not the whole country.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JohnBlackburne based on current format. If it is possible to create such articles for lists of villages in individual provinces (or smaller subdivisions) of China, then maybe this could be turned into a "list of lists" article instead. But trying to list hundreds of thousands, or perhaps more than a million, villages on this one page is not going to be helpful to users. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When articles become too long, they can be split into sub articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I should add that having looked at the US articles the best way to do it would be to dump lists of villages for each county/prefecture level city/province into separate articles, whether or not each village its own article. The ones that are notable so they have their own article can be found via the category (or categories once it gets too big). The lists will then be comprehensive and so useful. Information can be added if it’s sourced and as editors find time, such as Chinese characters, population and coordinates. As articles are created for villages they can be linked, as slowly or quickly as they are created. The lists will encourage and facilitate this, making it clear which villages could do with articles.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would support splitting it into provinces as opposed to outright deleting based on the American examples. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously valid list topic. See wp:CLT about complementary roles of categories and lists. Of course this will naturally be split by province and smaller levels. Panic about this growing to have 1 million entries is amusing. --do ncr am 04:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid list topic and useful index for articles, as stated by a number of editors it can be seperated into provinces when it gets too big Atlantic306 (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doncram, Atlantic306 et al. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so we can have a List of villages article for every country? looking at the Category:Lists of villages by country, there are quite a lot more to be created:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- actually yes I'd say we could have a list of villages for every country, per WP:GEOLAND and WP:NOTPAPER. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - great, lets get started .... or maybe add it to the evergrowing pile of wikistuff to do. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GEOLAND sets forth very ambitious goals for Wikipedia when it comes to named populated places, and this list is in accordance with those goals. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not sure about WP:GEOLAND, but meets WP:LISTN thru WP:LISTPURP. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2016 (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.