Talk:List of United Kingdom bird clubs and ornithological societies
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Pigsonthewing in topic No text, notability issues, red links, almanac, promotion?
 | This page was proposed for deletion by Marchjuly (talk · contribs) on 26 December 2016 with the comment: No indication as to how this article satisfies WP:SAL. The vast majority of the entries are red links which seem to have little chance of ever becoming viable stand-alone articles. Removing them with leave only a few entries, whose Wikipedia notability also appears questionable at best. Primary purpose of the article seems to have been to create a online directory of these organizations which is not really what Wikipedia is about. It was contested by Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs) on 2016-12-27 |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No text, notability issues, red links, almanac, promotion?
editA collection of nearly useless information, should be in local newspaper(s). I propose dead-linked names be simply deleted - no article in wikipedia is almost prima facie lack of notability. There's no good place to redirect this page to, it just shouldn't exist. Somebody had way too much time on their hands. What if anything can/should/needs to be said about these? THEN SAY IT, and get rid of the names, or move them into a footnote. Maybe (just barely) the article can be restructured into an article about U.K. bird clubs. But then, why not 195 corresponding articles, one for each country in the world today? Egad. If we don't need them all, then we don't need any.Sbalfour (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with the above assessment. When I first saw the article, it was basically a list of names with external links to their various websites. Only a few of the entries had stand-alone articles written about them and the rest were red links with externl links. I removed the external links,but that only solved one of the problems the article has. Red links aren't necessarily bad, but creating a list article when pretty much all of the entries are red link does not really show the notability of the list itself required by WP:SAL. The notablility of the organziations with stand-alone articles written is also questionable, and these may turn article to eventually be deleted; however, even if they are not, a stand alone list article for six organizations is not really needed. I think this article probably should be prodded, and taken to AfD if any one objects. Whether the article was created by somebody "with too much time on their hands" or somebody who did not understand what Wikipedia is not. It was created back in 2006 when policies/guidelines were probably less numerous and more likely to allow these types of articles, but WP:LONGTIME is not really a reason to keep something that no longer belongs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- On the contrary; I'll wager that most of the red-linked societies will meet our notability criteria when someone gets around to researching and writing the articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)