Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of model railroad clubs (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. With the recent changes to remove non-notable listings, User:Reywas92's suggestion of a merge should be explored on the talk page. Daniel (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of model railroad clubs

[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)

This is just a list of otherwise non-notable model railroad clubs. Wikipedia is not a directory and there is no encyclopedic value to such a list. ... discospinster _talk 02:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as contributor. Reversing my (forgotten) keep assertion from 2012. This is the definition of notdirectory since virtually all the sourcing of entries are direct links to the organizations themselves. BusterD (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~WP:NOTDIR list of overwhelmingly non-notable WP:RUN OF THE MILL model rail clubs.~~ Too short to be realistically useful. Unless this quadruples in size it’s nothing a category can’t provide. Dronebogus (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just erased all the entries that did not link to their own Wikipedia article. That was most of them. It is now a valid navigation list article. There are additional entries at Category:Rail transport modelling associations which can be added to it. Dream Focus 05:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added two more that weren't there. There are 11 entries total, with links to their Wikipedia articles. Enough for a list article to exist. Dream Focus 05:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Now it’s the opposite problem— it’s too short to have a purpose. If there’s less than a dozen entries it doesn’t need to be a list since the scope is too narrow to have a meaningful navigational purpose that couldn’t be covered by a category. Dronebogus (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winnowed down to the blue links, it's a reasonable list, and it provides at-a-glance information (e.g., years of founding) that looking at a category page couldn't. Good enough. XOR'easter (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In it's current state it is a useful navigation list that adds value over a category. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been edited to remove all the non notable entries and spamlinks, looks ok now. Ajf773 (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This list itself is desperately short on RS, but of the individual list entries, if each were AFDed as of this datestamp, only ~~two~~ three of them would be kept (for lack of RS on the others). These articles and this list are almost entirely self-sourced. BusterD (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of model railways. Agree that now this is too short to be particularly useful and that some of these links like Highland Park Society of Model Railroad Engineers should be deleted. However most of the remaining links are also museums or are clubs that have their own railways that would be in the other list anyway. Reywas92^Talk 14:00, 14 December 2021 (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.