Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of transgender-support 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 Delete. --- Gl e n 01:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

List of transgender-support organizations
Indiscriminate list of external links. See WP:NOT. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no web directory. Gazpacho 23:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This one's easy. WP:NOT a directory. JChap2007 23:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above and delete List of transgender-rights organizations along with it. wikipediatrix 23:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. This is not an article.  I've put an afd on the one mentioned above also. Friday (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * comment nominee of a related AfD detailed below. LinaMishima 02:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's just a bunch of links. Listcruft, WP:NOT. -- Nish kid 64 00:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 *  Keep or Merge identical verdict to AfD for List of transgender-rights organizations, a highly related article. Note the points about the purpose of a list. Yes, the article could do with cleanup and redefinition to prevent endless expansion, but AfD is not the place to debate such things. LinaMishima 02:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Added Merge to my main input (AfD is not a vote) - As I suspect that it may be more sensible to merge this and the -rights article into List of transgender organizations (I thought we used the 's' spelling variants according to MoS?) LinaMishima 14:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh, we use organization with a 'z'. I'll have to dig out and have another read of the WP:MOS, I think LinaMishima 14:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete giant linkfarm. Opabinia regalis 03:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The lobbying organisations have a public profile, and deserve a list; these organisations will never have articles, and can be just as easily located on Google. Rebecca 04:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT NeoFreak 06:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete linkcruft &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  08:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and delete comments above.--24.20.69.240 09:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom ST47 14:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rebecca. &mdash; Khoikhoi 22:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Icarus (Hi!) 00:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Well meaning, but this should be placed on somebody's own web page.  --Dennis The TIger 01:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Michael 07:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It meets all the criteria of List guideline.  It's identical in both purpose and structure to the List of transgender-rights organizations, and it's  AfD page provides voluminous reasons to keep both.  Mugaliens 14:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see the harm in it, and it is not dissimilar to over 100 articles in the Lists of organizations category, such as List of veterans' organizations. ntennis 02:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that in the example cited, the majority of items on the list have Wikipedia articles, unlike this list of external links. --Icarus (Hi!) 06:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer another example? How about List of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies? What about lists of things with NO wikipedia articles, such as List of Proto-Indo-European roots? I think there is a real divergence of viewpoints here about the purpose of lists. ntennis 06:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think there is a real divergence of viewpoints here about the purpose of lists. Agreed, I see this happen all the time with list AfDs. In the case of the two lists involved here (as this is the same as the aforementioned other AfD), most of the groups featured actually warrant their own articles. Yes, the list is fairly raw, but I see nothing which intrinsically prevents it from being enhanced. A notariety requirement, as foul as notariety is as a concept, is a much-needed addition. These are not "List of cool websites", these are "List of established organisations", many of which are national bodies deserving of their own articles (and indeed have them, but are often not linked). LinaMishima 11:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT a directory, nor is at a social support framework. Noting the comment suggesting arguments about a similar article support this list, but it's not concluded, and I sense that most respondents have an agenda.  Cain Mosni 13:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above comments. RFerreira 19:21, 5 September 2006 (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.