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. postdlf (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGBT community centres in Canada[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an address book. Wikipedia lists are lists of articles, not of everything that can be listed. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the same reasons I oppose deleting the List of LGBT community and student centres in the United Kingdom article. I would've tried a merge with List of LGBT-related organizations, but that would be unrealistic to develop that article into an exhaustive list of all notable LGBT organizations worldwide; as Wikipedia grows, creating articles/lists by country is a better idea. Several of the items in the List of LGBT community centres in Canada are already standalone articles, so deleting a list of items that are themselves notable does not make any sense.OttawaAC (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list as it exists is not "an address book" by any stretch. It includes a reasonable number of articles that exist and some that need to be developed. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A little better in form than the UK listing, but once again, this is a directory. What about List of dog grooming facilities in Ohio or List of car washes in in UK? We could do an infinite number of such lists, which I'm sure would be helpful to Ohioans interested in finding a place to take Mitzi for a haircut or to wash the Fiat in Swindon, ad infinitum. Those institutions on this list which meet GNG should have their own pages, without question, but this is nothing but a directory in the final analysis, which is something which Wikipedia is not. Carrite (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: list is composed almost entirely of redlinks. Fails WP:STAND. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's rather obvious, isn't it? No special pleading. This information is perfectly legitimate on a personal blog, just not on Wikipedia. Arbitrary lists? Delete. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 01:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per same reasoning as the UK equivalent list. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It appears that this list is not ready; certainly when sources could be found, then it would be notable. I can't see how any reasonable person would say this list is random. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Responding to the sole keep vote above, I'm not sure how this doesn't fall under the directory standard. It's just a list. Additionally, without any claim to notability, other concerns can be raised. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete This also seems like an WP:ADVERT, and the list in the UK should go too. If there is somethign specifically notabole about a centre then it can be made (though it could be an orphan)Lihaas (talk) 11:08, 7 June 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.