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 Speedy keep - consensus to keep, and it's a bad faith sockpuppet nomination. If someone wants this deleted, they can open another one. FCYTravis (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of motorcycle clubs[edit]

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

There is a category for such, terefore a list would not be needed as for most of these are redlinked. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:LIST. It appears to be an ordered developmental list that complements the category. A category cannot show red-links for missing encyclopedic entries, an important function. Notability of red-linked clubs should be better sourced, but the main problems with the list were fixed in the first AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete/Merge how many motorcycle clubs would be notable? If this is destined to be a list of red links, and not a complete list since I'd imagine there are far more motorcycle clubs in the world than those listed, then I say delete. However if it will eventually serve as a home for clubs that are not notable on their own but could be discussed as a part of a whole 'motorcycle clubs' then perhaps it should be merged here: Motorcycle club. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even things in list have to adhere to notability guidelines. The inclusion of a few redlinks isn't a a rationale for deletion. It's a rationale for improving the article and removing them, or if they are notable enough to have their own article, to write their articles. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply a few red links is wonderful for red link development but if they're never going to be articles because they're not notable, they're dedtined to be perma redlinks. That's why I asked the likelihood of these ever being notable. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CLN. Nominator should re-read guidelines for lists and categories. Categories don't replace lists. Include only notable motorcycle clubs (which is already how lists generally work, per LISTS), and there's no reason to delete. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Primarily because I concur with Celarnor. Garth of the Forest (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One year later, it's still an indiscriminate list whose stated purpose is to be "a list of articles of motorcycle-related clubs". The red-links, obviously, are not articles. The blue links are covered by a category, which has no less information than is on this list. The other problem with the list is that there's no definition of what a "motorcycle-related club" is, and this one appears to take all comers. Got a motorcycle club? Add it to the list. If there were a "list of roadhouses favored by bikers" that had this little in the way of organization, I don't think there would be much question of whether to delete it. In this case, the category works just fine, and if you want your club in the category, write an article about it. Mandsford (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gene. Also, a reader asking "what motorcycle clubs are there?" is not being unreasonable, and nor is the question trivial miscellany. It is not unreasonable for Wikipedia to provide that list. So aside from the developmental benefit of this list due to the redlinks, the list has a reasonable informational function as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, do any of you keep voters needed to be reminded that this is not a club directory which is what I really want to point out. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive, and a list of notable articles is just fine per WP:LIST. MickMacNee (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have boldly removed the redlinks and the prose cut and paste stuff at the bottom, it realy should be a list of WP articles only. MickMacNee (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Encyclopedic. FCYTravis (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: Nominator has been confirmed as a sockpuppet account. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:52, 10 April 2008 (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.