Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alleged UFO-related locations

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. Wizardman 03:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of alleged UFO-related locations

This is a fringe soapbox. In this way numerous pointless articles can be created like List of US military related locations, List of UK military related locations, List of X related locations etc. etc. Pointless article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 23:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~there is already a category for this (Category:UFO-related locations)~~ per nom. John Sloan (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a needless duplicate of a category. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:CLN. Lists are meant to complement categories. With all due respect, WP:FRINGE and WP:SOAP are being misapplied, or at least applied without any sort of explanation as to how they might be relevant, in many of this user's several UFO-related noms. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 12:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pointless and uninformative, and as another user mentions, a needless duplicate of an existing category. Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per CLN. This is the list counterpart of an existing category, and should be kept as such. There's no reason to delete this if we aren't going to be deleting the category; there are many, many things we can do with lists that we can't do with categories. It'd be a pity to cripple our navigational system simply because some people can't make the necessary distinctions. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gatoclass. Unneeded, and there are no reliable sources to back anything up. Tavix (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete even by my flexible standards for lists, "alleged" and "related" makes this altogether too vague. Possibly it will be able to find some better way of dealing with this. DGG (talk) 04:09, 19 August 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.