Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpool firsts

:{{la|Liverpool firsts}} ([{{fullurl:Liverpool firsts|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpool firsts}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Unsourced, unencyclopedic list which seems to breach several major elements of WP:NOT. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Although there is an idea here for a list, properly referenced. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as it stands. Claims are too extravagant without properly verifiable sources to back them up. Feel free to rescue this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Userfy to allow the article to be altered into something encyclopaedic. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Definately potential for a future article or subsection in a broader article (maybe History of Liverpool?), but information needs to be fully referenced first. In my opinion, it would be also be better if it was synthesised into prose --Daviessimo (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not wikified (not even properly list-wikified), no sources to support even one of the claims. OR? Cynical (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

:Perhaps if I turn it into something like this - Science and invention in Birmingham it will be better? Unlike that article I will of course attempt to find citations. If that is not acceptable, can you flag the Birmingham article for delete also? RodCrosby (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

:: If properly cited, that would change my !vote. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

:::One of the problems here, guys, is that one particular administrator seems to think that an article/edit must be perfect (in his opinion), else it is his God-given right to instantly delete/flag for deletion, without going through the usual lesser stages first, e.g. {{fact}}, discussion, etc., or even waiting just a few minutes to see if citations appear. He says these are "a matter of courtesy" - in other words he is not required to be courteous to other editors. With someone like that around it is very difficult to press on with developing this article or others, because you will never know the minute when entire sections/articles will just "disappear" and you will be taunted with a highly-selective self-serving "snippet" of WP:BLP or something.... Thoughts, please....RodCrosby (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

::::Thoughts? Be mindful of making no personal attacks please; I have Wikipedia's interests at heart here. Indeed it will be difficult developing an article when one doesn't cite their sources - a core principle of contributing to Wikipedia is verifiability. If you want to develop a page without sources, use a sandbox, don't publish your own research or opinions.

::::The problem with this list is.... even if it is sourced, it's not a balanced, neutral, encyclopedic article. It's clearly an indiscriminate list made by somebody with too much pride in a particular city. And indeed, what are "Liverpool firsts"? Was it Liverpool that made these things happen, or its people? Is it "firsts" by people from Liverpool, or people in Liverpool? What about negative firsts in Liverpool? --Jza84 |  Talk  18:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::I am not making personal attacks. I am making moderate personal criticisms of your actions as an admin, which is quite different, and goes with the job I would have thought. As for "pride", I suppose that's OK for Birmingham but not for Liverpool, wrt to Science and invention in Birmingham for example. I'm sure there are other examples around and about. I've already offered to change the article title to something more "encyclopedic". I note your moving of the goalposts. First it's not sourced, then even if it is sourced it's not good enough. Taking just two fields, public health and social reform, there is a remarkable and easily verified history that has impacted people throughout the UK and beyond. What if there really is an interesting and verifiable story to tell about Liverpool, and you're the only person who can't/won't see it? Where do we go from there? As for negatives, sure, Liverpool has its fair share, in common with most other places, and I have no problem with these being mentioned appropriately. In other words, unremarkable, and certainly not "innovations or inventions", which by definition require common-purpose, vision and endeavour. I also objected to your apparent "hunting" for another article I have contributed to, Crosby, Merseyside, deleting a huge chunk apparently on a whim, and justifying it on the grounds that because you are an admin you aren't required to show courtesy. This is all crazy stuff (imho) which appears designed to create resentment and hostility. You may have had a bad recent experience with another editor (and fwiw I can see your side of that argument more than his) but I hope that hasn't jaundiced your approach to your role as admin, and you now operate on a hair-trigger. If so, it might be time to take a voluntary break for a while. Sincerely. RodCrosby (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Having given an opinion above (which I do not change) I have given more thought to the idea of this list. Liverpool is a city in which much innovation has taken place, and it is reasonable that it should receive credit for what its people have achieved. I find the idea of "Liverpool firsts" seductive. But this is not the way to do it; and indeed I wonder if there is a realistic way. Looking at the current list, the first question is "Who says?" - the fundamental principle of Wikipedia that everything has to be verifiable, which means all the claims must be cited (Wikipedia:Verifiability). The next question is "What precisely does that mean?", which means there has to be some sort of explanation/definition/clarification. Then "What qualifies?". The list includes three world premieres of pieces of classical music - only three? There must be hundreds, if not thousands - only last year there were two world premieres of what could well become classics in the choral repertoire. And then "What are the limits of Liverpool?" - "Liverpool and its environs" is too vague. Does this include Birkenhead, etc.? A list like the present one is probably uncontrollable; and would be subject to all sorts of challenge, reversions and the like. So we may have to re-think the idea. Certainly Merseyside offers the opportunity of many more stubs (preferably articles) containing information about the "firsts". I just wonder if there could be a category into which they could be collected, say "Category:Liverpool achievements", or something like that. Does anyone know how (or if) this sort of thing has been done elsewhere? Has anyone produced a suitable title for such a category? And how could its boundaries be maintained? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

:Fine with me. I have added the most significant (imho) to the main Liverpool article, grouped into broad fields, all with citations, taken mostly from outside of the Liverpool city council propaganda department! Perhaps a subsidiary article similar to the Birmingham one can be linked, with citations of course. [part of the reason we are here is because I was not really given the chance to add citations.] As for environs, etc, a broad degree of flexibility must be allowed - for instance I'm sure there would be no "Birkenhead" or "Wallasey" tunnels if Liverpool had remained an obscure fishing village... I guess if the event either happened in Liverpool or was due to activities within Liverpool, even if physically located (slightly) outside the current geographical boundary it may be worthy of inclusion. I'm not at all interested in the origins of the personalities involved [scousers' hall of fame, etc] but innovations and inventions that can be reliably traced to the city and its influence. Incidentally, I wonder why wiki calls this category "inventions, etc" - it's not a term scientists really go with. They prefer "development" I think. RodCrosby (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

::Or "innovations" maybe - which might include inventions and such matters as social development (the first medical officer of health, for example). "Developments" might cause confusion with Category:Development which does not really include what we want. I think this should be further discussed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Merseyside, so I have copied part of this into its talk page. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

: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.