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. Black Kite (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of model railroad clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a WP:LINKFARM. Discounting the external links, the redlinks, those bluelinks which do not point to articles about the specific club (such as links to placenames) and the unsourced black text yields just nine valid list entries, of which only one is referenced. Those nine can be made a subsection of Rail transport modelling. Redrose64 (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; the few notable links can be mentioned elsewhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reusing content from the article would be merger not deletion. Warden (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination wants to make this into a subsection of another article. That's merger, not deletion, and so the discussion does not belong here. Warden (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - note with no clear threshold for inclusion this list would become fairly unmaintainable - within the blue links- I'd expect at maybe 100 for UK alone. I suggest a hardlink to Category:Rail transport modelling associations from somewhere sensible in Rail transport modelling. But not an attempt to sectionalise the current info into the article - notable clubs should make it into articles of themselves - there are a few eg Tech Model Railroad Club, also National Model Railroad Association maybe MOROP that spring to mind maybe others. Minor regional ones might just about make it past notability tests through regional newspaper coverage can be covered through categorisation.

I also note the list is painfully incomplete.. (relates to unmaintainability)

Note of those blue links Alamo Model Railroad Engineers and The San Antonio Garden Railroad Engineers Society redirect to Texas Transportation Museum. Sheffield DCC looks like a speedy delete due to lack of notability.Mddkpp (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'll start by saying I'm predisposed to List of... articles; this seems to me valid subject material for a List of... article. It may well need a great deal of clean-up, but to the extent any List of... article satisfies WP:GNG, for me, this one does; there are articles on clubs, and lists of clubs, in a wide range of the model and rail-related press as well as in more general press. I checked out a couple of redlinks on google, and the two railway clubs both appeared at a quick glance to satisfy GNG in their own right. On the basis that I think it's legit to have this article, I don't think Rail transport modelling has space for a comprehensive listing, and so I'm not supportive of the merge. If kept, then it would be desirable that there were criteria for inclusion on the list. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the validity of an article Model Rail Road club - that's a valid topic which doesn't seem to exist as yet. Probaly the few articles that currently exist would be linked as most seemto be examples of "oldest club in the country" etc. Such a thing would need a big rewrite.. and a volunteer... Q. Aren't there lists elsewhere online for model railway clubs (per country) - It though these things had 'clubs of clubs' - eg aren't most N.American clubs members of NMRA? I'm sure I've seen lists somewhere else.. That would be simpler than keeping the list here.Mddkpp (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, there are several dozen external links in the article, many (but not all) associated with a nearby redlink. A good proportion of those external links will be found by a Google search, but that does not make the club notable - it merely means that it's got its own webpage. Any club worth its salt will have a webpage, if only to show where and when they meet. Once the ELs that fail WP:ELNO (or if you prefer, those that don't satisfy WP:ELYES) are removed, what's left? Very little. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Though basically all the redlinks and external links should be removed. That is, a list of notable clubs probably makes sense, but a list of all clubs with a website is an unencyclopedic directory. Eluchil404 (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a sourced list, though some of the entries may not be notable enough for their own wikipedia page. I see no reason to delete this material and every reason to improve. Like User:Tagishsimon above, I'd like to see some criteria for inclusion, and I'd like to see the source formatting completed. I'll start. BusterD (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2012 (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.