Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of transgender-rights organizations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of transgender-rights organizations[edit]

This isn't so much an article as it is a big list of links. Surely, it's all well and good to have proper articles on various transgender related topics, but I don't see that Wikipedia's mission includes hosting a directory of these groups. Whatever such organizations are verifiable and significant could have their own articles, and there could be a category for these, I have no problems with that. Friday (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep please see WP:LISTs if you don't understand the purposes of lists, why categories cannot replace lists, and why individual articles cannot replace lists. Admittingly it does need a fair bit of work, but AfD is not cleanup. WilyD 15:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read it, and I'm aware that lists can do some things that categories cannot. I still think it should be deleted, as it's mostly just external links, and the people editing it obviously want to use it as a list of external links, so I don't see that cleaning it up by removing them would help. Friday (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a low quality article, but I stand by my claim that AfD is not cleanup. WilyD 15:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think this can actually turn into an article? I'm not even saying a good article, but just an article. It seems to me like any encyclopedic purpose served by this is already covered by LGBT social movements and possibly others. Maybe I just lack imagination, but I can't see this becoming a proper article. If anything, maybe this is a holding place for material that could be worked into a different article? If that's the case, let's unlink it from article space and move it to LGBT social movements/templist or something. Friday (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, why not? Take a look at a lot of the lists in Wikipedia:Featured lists for an example of how something like this can turn out. WilyD 15:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - To my mind, this is exactly the kind of thing that someone could come to Wikipedia looking for. There is no format violation to speak of as far as I can tell but if someone was to put forward a reasonable merge candidate, I'd look at it. Ac@osr 22:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I'm very concerned about the process this has undergone. Firstly the article was "speedy" deleted by User:Friday without discussion, warning, or listing here. By the rationale given for the above nomination, and the discussion on User talk:Friday#Deleted page, this administrator seems to feel that any "list of..." pages are eligible for speedy deletion. Even just narrowing the objection to "list of X organisations" there's a whole category (Category:Lists of organizations) that would have to be deleted, including such articles as List of Kurdish organisations, List of veterans' organizations, etc. etc. I'm also concerned that Friday suggests there was a consensus for the speedy delete, and that "saying you want to follow a democratic process is, well, quite at odds with how things work here. Afd is not a democracy" (see user talk page). ntennis 23:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why you'd say it was deleted without discussion. As I said on my talk page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of transgender-support organizations was about an article nearly identical to this one, and someone mentioned this article as being deletable for the same reasons. I'm also not sure why you're continuing to go on about "process"- since there was a disagreement, I undeleted and brought this to Afd. Is that not exactly what you wanted? Can we use this Afd to talk about the merits of the article and whether or not it should be deleted rather than talking about process? Friday (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm "continuing to go on about 'process'" precisely because you don't understand why it's important, and because you say things like "Not sure why you'd say it was deleted without discussion." For an administrator to believe that a speedy deletion consitutes discussion and consensus is very worrying. I encourage you to reread the policy page Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. I wanted to answer your question, but you are right that this discussion should be focussed on the article. I'll keep further comments on topic. ntennis 00:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you using this as a test case against "list of..." articles? Because there are well over 100 articles in the sub-category Lists of organizations alone. What is the difference between this and the articles I linked above, or even list of sign languages? If there is a reason that these pages are less objectionable to you, perhaps we can modify the article. Would you be happier if the external links were moved to footnotes? ntennis 00:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not remotely. Some lists can become decent articles. I'm only talking about this particular page. Friday (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so what can be done to this article to make it a decent article? Can you be explicit about the difference between this and the articles I linked above? ntennis 00:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed all the weblinks, support organisations, and associated dreck, and turned it into a standard list of links to other articles. There should be no excuse for deletiong this now. Trying to delete this on the basis that the "support groups" page was utterly disingenuous - while the other list was full of non-notable grounds with no public profile (and no intention of getting one), many of the groups on this list are well-known and very much deserving of individual articles. Rebecca 04:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not agree with the statement that the list's purpose could be fulfilled by a prospective category. There are uncountably many instances on Wikipedia where there exist both a list and a category about the exact same subject. I find the list useful and encyclopedic in its current state, I think that it should be maintained and improved, and that it will naturally transform from a list of external links into a list of Wikipedia articles as these organizations get to have their own articles. You should realize that not every single noteworthy organization has an article on Wikipedia yet, and this list also serves the purpose of keeping track of these related organizations until they might be covered by an article and put into a category. I urge you to also check the guideline of direct relation to this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 00:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly useful list. Rebecca 04:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I like how this list and the "support organization" list distinguish between service and advocacy. certainly over time, some of these groups will stand the test of time and have pages in their own right and some will not, but this list has the same red to blue ration I see in many political and geographic articles. Scarykitty
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or a repository for links. Additionally, the insane number or redlinks make this a pretty useless list. The main article namespace is not the appropriate place to make a list of articles that one believes should be created. If someone wants that kind of list, they're free to make it within their userspace. While redlinks are sometimes acceptible in lists for the sake of completeness, this list is almost nothing but redlinks. The few that are blue could easily be put into a category (either one that already exists or a new one). --Icarus (Hi!) 00:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:List guideline, which invalidates the above claim that "Wikipedia is not a directory or a repository for links. According to the List guideline, embedded links in the list contents are even recommended, provided they take the user to the appropriate resource. The links needs some attention, but that's a reason to improve it, not delete it. Mugaliens 14:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOT is policy. WP:LIST is guideline. Some external links and some redlinks can be useful, but this is a list of nothing but 41 redlinks with 8 bluelinks and 1 external link. --Icarus (Hi!) 16:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The redlinks and external links are now removed. Additional information has been added. Would you consider changing your vote? ntennis 02:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment internal redlinks to subjects of worth are why lists are good, not a reason to delete the list. The redlinks point out deficiencies in wikipedia, not within the article itself. LinaMishima 11:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and categorise articles. WP:NOT a directory. Lists can occasionally be useful, bit this one is not. If the organisations are not worthy of articles, they're not worthy of noting in a list. If they are worth of articles, there's no point having a navigation list to reach them until they articles exist. Use the article request framework. Sub-categorise to achieve appropriate corss-reference by topic and location. Far more functional than this simple directory list. (I know, WilyD - we don't agree on this one, either.) Cain Mosni 13:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least on the point of If they are worth of articles, there's no point having a navigation list to reach them until they articles exist. WP:LIST smashes this argument so hard it should be illegal. The rest of the arguments are poor to none-existant as well - they essentially boil down to "some people might prefer another, inferior method of organisation." WilyD 04:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of transgender-support organizations into List of transgender organizations (or of similar name). Most rights groups point people at support, and most support groups do campaigning, hence makes sense to have one list. Would be easier to bring it up to Featured List quality this way, too, in my opinion. LinaMishima 14:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rebecca Chris M. 11:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you "keep per Friday" when Friday is the one who nominated it for deletion? --Icarus (Hi!) 04:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fix...wrong name, thanks. Chris M. 04:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please per rebecca the list is useful erasing it makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 22:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Rebecca -it's a bunch of redlinks now but hopfully it will get people to make the articles. Armon 16:24, 8 September 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_transgender-rights_organizations&oldid=1069022444"