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 no consensus with WP:NPASR. Two relists only brought one further real comment (plus one WP:PERX) which did not mention a policy-based reason for deletion (but instead admitted that the topic might actually be notable). So Why 19:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC) reply

List of housing cooperatives in Canada

List of housing cooperatives in Canada (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Not a useful list. Canada literally has thousands upon thousands of housing cooperatives, since virtually every city of even moderate size will have a few dozen, and even smaller towns will often have a handful too -- but as things stand right now, just six of them actually have their own standalone articles, all six of them are already filed in Category:Housing cooperatives in Canada, and this list just replicates those same six rather than aiming for anything more comprehensive. While it's true that lists aren't automatically deemed redundant with categories per WP:CLN, it's also true that every category doesn't automatically need to be paired with its own matching list of the same contents -- to warrant maintaining both, the list needs to be doing something useful that the category can't do (such as being more completist, or actually containing written content about the notability of the concept, or being a one-stop-shopping location for a category that's otherwise diffused into subcategories). But if all the list is going to do is replicate the category contents with no added context for why the list is doing something different than the category is, then we don't need the list. Bearcat ( talk) 14:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN as complement to Category:Housing cooperatives in Canada. The nomination misstates what CLN says, and the difference from the category comes from the inherent characteristics of the format itself (CLN lays these out, in addition to noting how some editors/readers prefer one format over another so don't delete either just based on your preference for one). You instead need a special reason why a list shouldn't exist in tangent with the category rather than special justification for it existing. Notwithstanding that, the nomination also fails to consider the list's potential for annotation, direct sourcing, table formatting and sorting, and other alternate means of organization, all of which are functions a category cannot perform, and this consideration of potential is required by WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, and WP:PRESERVE. "Delete because it has not yet been developed" is simply not a valid position at AFD, yet that's what I read above. postdlf ( talk) 21:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply

The nominator correctly understands what CLN says: it does not say that lists and categories should always coexist with each other, but specifies that while sometimes there are valid reasons why a list and a category should coexist, there are also sometimes valid reasons why content should be organized in one form or the other but not in both. Table formatting and sorting, for example, are formatting matters for how a list should be organized, not reasons in and of themselves why a list needs to exist. What other criterion, besides alphabetizing their names as the category already does, do we need a list of six entries to offer alternate resortability on, for starters? And what further annotation needs to be provided here, and what additional sourcing needs to be added besides what's already present in the articles themselves? Bearcat ( talk) 15:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Your nomination claimed that "...the list needs to be doing something useful that the category can't do..." Those formatting and annotation possibilities for development provide just that (and the annotations could include year of founding, specific location, size, notes on history/special features, etc., and direct footnotes for all of this). Your position, whatever its merits, that the list isn't required to coexist here is also not the same as arguing that it isn't permissible, so whence deletion? postdlf ( talk) 20:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC) reply

• I'm a big proponent of CLN here, but with the list creator indef blocked (in part for persistent bare-minimum page creation), and the nominator the most likely person up here imo to expand the list and turn it into something useful, I've no objection in this case. Weak delete. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete - As per Shawn in Montreal. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 04:48, 30 June 2017 (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.