Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College Model Railroads

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. There may be reason for an article at this title, but this article fails to demonstrate that case. There are no reliable sources here, and concerns that the article is presently a link-farm seem well-founded. Strength of argument supports deletion of this version, without prejudice against any future reliably sourced rewrite, as usual. Xoloz (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

College Model Railroads

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of external links. Corvus cornix_talk 00:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ahhhhh, I am all for nostalgia, being of that age,. However, delete, non-notable. . Shoessss | Chat 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rail transport modelling. Normally I'd say this is something that could be sufficiently covered by a category, but I think the founding dates are relevant. That said, it doesn't appear to be a topic with sufficient independent notability to need its own article. Powers ^T 00:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the external links? That's still not acceptable. Corvus cornix_talk 00:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's more than external links there. Powers ^T 00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Merger does not solve the problem that this is basically nothing but a directory of external links. Corvus cornix_talk 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - But it's not; it's a list of collegiate model railroad clubs, with dates of founding. The links don't have to be there. Powers ^T 00:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        To be clear, my point is that the basic list of collegiate clubs and their founding dates would be a suitable addition to the Rail transport modelling article; the presence or absence of external links is immaterial. Powers ^T 01:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the nom and lack of sourcing. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#DIR. Even a merge to Rail transport modelling would invite every model railroad club to list. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I am the author of this. I think the list is notable, but perhaps better placed under the [Rail transport modeling] article. The sources of the information come from the links to the respective clubs. Omitted were not stated on their websites (except the North Seattle Community College, whose website is on blogspot, and wiki would not let it stand linked). Boblenon (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lonelybeacon. There have been a number of AfDs on individual Railroad clubs, apart from TMRC the notability of any of them individually is doubtful. We have an article on railroad modelling, why does an agglomeration of links to non-notable clubs constitute a salvageable article? --Storkk (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was, historically, a very important movement. Needs cites. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is appropriate coverage--not articles for the individual clubs. The individual contents of a list doesnt have to be notable independently--lists are suitable for the very purpose when the items arent. DGG (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you, but is it necessary to have the list in its own article? Powers ^T 12:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete linkfarm, of questionable encyclopedic value. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2007 (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.