Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of amateur radio organizations


 * 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 qualified keep. Unlike its counterpart List of amateur radio emergency service groups, this article is not entirely made up of external links. However it is clear from the discussion that it is expected that external links should replaced by external links - the format should be along the lines of List of amateur radio organizations/Internal link version but without external links alongside each entry. Where possible a short stub detailing why the organization is notable should be created. WP:NOT is policy and cannot be overriden simply because editors find it incovenient. A stubs and lists with many redlinks are fine (Wikipedia is a work in progress), but link farms are not. WjBscribe 00:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

List of amateur radio organizations

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This has survived a previous AFD; See (previous AFD). Needless to say, consensus back then cannot overule core wikipedia policies on external links and what wikipedia is all about. The subject of the current article runs contrary to WP:NOT and WP:NOT. Plus, this page will not be complete. Instead of maintaining this page, create articles on notable amateur radio organizations and categorize them. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  17:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * STRONG delete. The most blatant violation of WP:NOT I have ever seen (and I've seen a lot). How did this ever survive afd last time?! Crazysuit 20:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As someone who was around the last time this article came under AfD consideration, I remember how bad it was trying to continually revert edits to the "External links" sections of all radio related articles. At the time, creating this list and ensuring editors could find their club on this list or add it resulted in the actual articles being avoided. Although I feel it is against Wikipedia policy, I suggest that we KEEP this article or move it to another wikimedia space that is better suited for this sort of list.Andrew juren (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get you. Why would you want to keep a list of external links? What if there is a notable amateur radio organization without a home page? How would you list it then? This list I'm afraid, is not finite and categories serve us better. And why would you want editors to find their club on the list, what do you mean by that? And to sum it, – see how I improved this club page  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; Just a directory of external links, this doesn't belong anywhere in the Wikipedia space. At least the above editor is honest in admitting this violates policy, but really, creating a list to divert spam from other articles isn't the way to do it. Try adding a hidden comment in the external links section of the relevant articles, you can find one at Spam. Masaruemoto 05:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - nominator is mistaken that "consensus ... cannot overule core wikipedia policies" - that is why the phrase 'ignore the rules' is around and for just this type of information, as explained by user:Andrewjuren. And if they were all turned into Articles, as nom suggests, how long would it be till all thoes 3 sentences stubs got AfD'd and we would loose the information compleatly? The current method is the best method to handle this Article. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  08:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with what you have to say. WP:IAR says: "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it." I can't see any reason why deleting a set of external links does any harm to wikipedia. We are an encyclopaedia, with information to read, not a web directory. Secondly, the point I'm trying to make here is not notability, but rather the encyclopaedic usefulness of external links, which is certainly not comprehensive. Thirdly, there is no clause in Wikipedia that says that a stub has to be AFDd. If there is, please prove me wrong. See how I improved this club page  Fourthly, this is not an article, it is a list, without references.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And I commend you for your good work for that club... but what your suggesting would cause each sentence in the current article to become its own Article, how long till each of thoes Article were removed for lack of content? Simply put, what we have for now is the best solution. I have no objection for individual club members making articles such as you did and changing the link at that time. I dont believe removing this current list would be doing anyone a favour, esp. someone looking for a club near them. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  23:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't have an AFD policy that cites an article should be deleted just because it is a stub. If it is a stub, it gives authors (and club members) the chance to improve it. As long as the club is notable, and has independent third party reliable sources, any attempt to AFD it will meet with failure. The list is NOT the best solution. It would have been different if it were a list of wikipedia articles, but a list of external links are a strict no no. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Stubs are in fact encouraged as one of the good ways of building articles. DGG (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

To the closing admin: Voting may be influenced by posts to the relevant wikiprojects:  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep.  Clearly these organizations are notable as a group and many may be notable on their own.  Their service in periods of disasters makes them as notable as any of the paid services that that work in conjunction with, such as police or fire services.  In some areas, members are actually considered first responders.  If anything, the list shows that we need to work on creating articles here.  Did I miss it or are groups like REACT specifically missing from these lists? Vegaswikian 21:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not contesting the notability of the organizations. What is being contested is that the page is a collection of links that is against wikipedia policy. "If anything, the list shows that we need to work on creating articles here" -- by all means please do so, but do not vote keep because of sentiment. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Same as the discussion held last time this came up in January.  These are not video game characters or school drama clubs, these are chartered organizations affiliated with national or international counterparts.  Also, whoever decided to rename the old AfD discussion rather than creating a new one needs to fix the link on the article talk page and AfD history pages as you managed to point all old references to your new AfD.  That link, referring to the AfD held in January, points to this discussion now. --StuffOfInterest 12:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not contesting the notability. The policy on external links does not discriminate between video game characters or amateur radio organizations. We have a uniform policy. Secondly, please do not confuse notability with a non-useful link farm. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We do not have a uniform policy on external links. Each person provides their own thoughts based on common sense to each case, and we record what is commonly considered common sense into guidelines. John Vandenberg 17:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We do have a policy, but the addition of links in the ==External links== sections is subjective. But we have no sanctioned policy for a page devoted exclusively to external links. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  01:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve, a quick scan tells me this is a work in progress with some very notable organisations in there that do not have articles yet. John Vandenberg 17:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Discuss: I've created an alternate version of the List of amateur radio organizations list which has each entry pointing to a potential article about that club. External links have been moved to the end of each entry in the list as required to prove notability and verifiability. (Note: the page contains only up to and including "Brazil". It's just to get feedback as to whether us editors thing this would be a move in the right direction.) Please comment. Andrew juren (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a lot of red, but I could live with it. In the early days I'm sure Wikipedia had more red than blue links in articles.  --StuffOfInterest 17:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this page is inline with wikipedia policies for list pages. If you can also add neutral references it would be more bulletproof. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  01:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would support a move to this format and, if consensus agrees, suggest the associated AfD also move to the same format. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  02:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Both lists could work this way. It preserves the content while pushing the focus towards existing and needing to be created articles. --StuffOfInterest 10:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There is not need to ignore any rules--lists such as this are perfectly in keeping with WP policies. The individual items in an article just have to be relevant and significant, and there is no rules against lists, nor are they even discouraged. Some articles are best that way.DGG (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There is not need to ignore any rules--lists such as this are perfectly in keeping with WP policies. The individual items in an article just have to be relevant and significant, and there is no rules against lists, nor are they even discouraged. Some articles are best that way.DGG (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2007 (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.