Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Without Borders organizations

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) 20:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Without Borders organizations[edit]

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

Can't really see how this list is suitable for Wikipedia's article space, it seems to simply be a directory/linkfarm of largely non-notable organisations that have the words "...Without Borders" or "...Sans Frontieres" in their name. They could all in theory have some inspiration from the name of Médecins Sans Frontières, but this is hardly a defining characteristic that warrants a list article (or category). The redlinks are, without exception, cited only to their own homepages. Time for it to go, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Sionk (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've cleaned up the list by removing non-notable entries, so at least the article has has a proper list-based article format. I'm still undecided as to whether this is a compelling organizational concept. There are sources out there that treat without borders organizations as a conceptual whole, but I haven't found much in depth discussion of the concept or defining attributes, other than being international in flavor. --Mark viking (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. I'm a WP:Deletionist, but this list provides a good encyclopedic reference point to all the organizations. The links to the organizations' websites, however, should be on the target pages. I support listing the orgs here and placing the sources or citations on the target pages. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. A lot of people have contributed to this list, presumably thinking that it is worth that effort. Tabletop (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a trivial grouping by shared name. The things on the list may all be similar, but it will exclude many other similar organizations that have a different name form. This is not a grouping by any common characteristic of the organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this grouping isn't compelling and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:18, 23 March 2015 (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.