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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) This AfD proposal was submitted on the basis of the contested list having only one item in it. Since the time the proposal was submitted, editors have added more items on the list. Whether or not the items legitimately appear on the list is a subject that would be discussed, if at all, on the article's talk page and, of course, not here. In any case, the basis for the AfD proposal exists no more. Therefore, the proposal is withdrawn. The Gnome (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of housing cooperatives in Canada[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A list that fails WP:LISTPURP, having only one item in it. Not much to say about this state of affairs, really. The Gnome (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I repeatedly pointed out in the prior discussion, five of the six articles that were once here were simultaneously up for deletion, due to not being properly sourced as having any notability at all — so any disagreement about whether six, five, four or three articles were enough to justify a list was irrelevant, because its reduction to a list of one thing was imminent. And now it's happened exactly as I pointed out: this is a list of one thing. And Canada doesn't really have any significant number of housing cooperatives that are actually notable or sourceable enough to warrant encyclopedia articles, so there's no prospect of it getting reexpanded back to a useful or list-justifying number of entries either. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally it would be appalling behavior to renominate so soon, but in this case it seems completely justified as this manifestly is not a list anymore. If the community decided we shouldn’t have all but one of the items that were previously on the list, it follows that the list shouldn’t exist either. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not OK to keep listing articles on AfD until you get the result you want, as is being done here. This article should be kept to discourage that sort of behaviour. Also, I think there is the potential for other notable co-ops to be found (given time). -Mparrault (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on both counts. Firstly, I had no part in previous listings. In the most recent AfD, which was the first time I got involved with this subject, I witnessed the items in the list getting deleted one by one. Before the list dwindled down to two items, the AfD was closed. The closing was premature in my humble opinion but that was what was decided. I submitted this AfD for the only reason that the list contains one single item and therefore cannot, by any reasonable measure, be considered a list. It serves no encyclopaedic purpose whatsoever.

Secondly, per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we are not posting up articles on the basis of speculations about the future. If it so happens that many more housing co-ops sprout up in Candada, I'd welcome the recreation of this list. As it now is, it's a carcass. -The Gnome (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Mparrault about wanting to discourage the behavior. Maybe "List of" should be dropped from the title, by a move to Housing cooperatives in Canada (currently a redlink) and some material could be moved from Housing cooperative#Canada (which is pretty long). I grant that a list-article of notable examples doesn't need to be split out from a main article, unless the list has gotten largish. So fine, redirect this back to the current main article (Housing cooperative#Canada) or, better, split out / develop Housing cooperatives in Canada. --Doncram (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly retire this nonsense about "discouraging the behavior," both you Doncram and Mparrault. There is nothing to "discourage" or "encourage" so please drop the silliness. The article, as it now stands, is not the same article any more. The previous AfD started with some six items in the list; now, it's a list of only one item. Try and see what is really going on here: This is a non-list. This list is dead. It's an ex-list. -The Gnome (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What has gone on seems obnoxious to me. It seems that five separate articles have been deleted outright, without moving any details over to this list-article, so there were then just redlinks which have then been stripped out. List items do not have to have to link to articles to exist. Anyhow, I went back to a previous version and restored 5 items that had been stripped out, so now it is a list of six again. I don't have access to the corresponding five deleted articles, to add references conveniently. I guess I could/should request restoration of the five separate articles to get material to merge back here. --Doncram (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list might eventually stay on, or be deleted; nobody knows. And I do not much care either way. What matters the most is the obnoxious behavior you seem to exhibit, Doncram, and you know very well this is not the first time. We all have better things to do in Wikipedia, I'm sure, than wasting time with this sort of childish tantrums! This AfD proposal has been made in entirely good faith: A list with only one item in it is by definition not a list; it's a travesty of the very concept. But if every time someone who proposes to delete an article that's for some reason dear to your heart you begin to behave boorishly ("you're having a brain freeze", and other such stupidities), then dialogue and collaboration collapse. You are advised to behave. -The Gnome (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2018 (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.