Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheelchair Organizations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelchair Organizations[edit]

Wheelchair Organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An entire article isn't really necessary; possibly turn into a category. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 00:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this is useful info that I can't find anywhere else on Wikipedia. If it is there then it needs to be more obvious. As such, I can't see a category being much use. Mallanox 00:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While this article may be useful if you're looking for organizations, it's not encyclopedic. WP is not the yellow pages. There's no assertion of notability for this collection of organizations, nor is there one for the individual orgs. eaolson 01:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if this were a list of articles for notable wheelchair organizations, I'd vote to keep it. But as it stands, it's a list of external links to (probably non-notable) wheelchair organization's webpages. Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Hyperbole 01:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would normally vote _delete_. However, the person who started the page was a newbie and I don't like deleting his page this quickly, since he's obviously editing in good faith. What I'd propose is merging the very basics of this article in some sort of way into Wheelchair. Yuser31415@? 01:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You make a good argument for not biting him, but any given editor's newness to Wikipedia shouldn't affect the way we handle information here. We should politely thank him for trying to contribute, explain why this list violates Wikipedia policies, and encourage him to try writing an article that doesn't. --Hyperbole 01:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this information is more useful to humanity, is factual, and is just as beneficial as a List of Current NBA Team Rosters or List of agricultural organizations? I fail to understand how this is one is different. Perhaps it should be moved to List of Wheelchair Organizations. However, there is a huge need for this, as I work for a non-profit that deals with wheelchairs. There is void of this useful information, which is made apparent by the fact that we are inundated with calls asking where someone can donate a wheelchair or get one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrn3 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, and if we delete them, then we might as well just put the wikiarticles mentioned in the page in a new category. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 01:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start a [[Category:Wheelchair organizations]], add relevant information to each of the articles that are Wikilinked to this one, add each of those articles to the new category, then delete the article in question. Doing it by category is far less awkward, and if it's done this way, we wouldn't be biting the originator of the nominated article: it still would be a positive contribution. B.Wind 01:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is not just a list. The first paragraph explains what these sorts of organizations are, what they do, how they work. It could be expanded to include the history of such organizations, how and why the initial organizing of such groups began, which existed in the past and were trailblazers, who was instrumental in it all, etc. I see a potentially interesting interaction with disability rights movement here. This is not just a list, it's a legitimate article, and it's still a stub. The scope that such an article can cover could not be covered by a category. — coelacan talk — 03:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to List of Wheelchair organizations, or something along those lines. Koweja 03:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I was bold and moved the page to List of wheelchair organizations. --- RockMFR 03:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • just plain Keep now.Koweja 13:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong Keep or, more precisely, keep and improve. Making this into a list is a first step--the next step would be to divide the list by country, because the problems a e very idfferent. And then we need a good article on this and related patient aid group, and we sahould really encourage this and even look for people ourslef=ves who can write them, because of the evident social need. WP is not a social welfare organization, but if there is something we can easily do , we should. DGG 06:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This article is hurting nothing. In my opinion it is good, valuable information. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impartial neutrality. I've tried, I've really tried, but I just can't develop an opinion on this debate. Black-Velvet 13:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unbelievable that this was listed. Trollderella 16:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You appear to have forgotten to provide an actual rationale for keeping. Uncle G 18:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No good reason for deletion was given. The article is factual and potentially useful. Trollderella 19:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep , the article should be cleaned up but kept.
  • Now that this's been turned into a list, I propose Keep, cleaning it up by making wikiarticles for the for the external links and changing the ext links to there, as I did for Direct Relief International. Then we could probably make a category for this, and possibly subcats for the various types. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 17:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Okay, I think it has been established that we should keep it. Can we remove the article for deletion stuff at the top now? Also, Veinor, I like your idea of making articles for each of these organizations. There are external links for organizations that don't have articles yet. Whoever wants to create the articles for these sites, feel free, but please move the external links I have put on the list of wheelchair organizations page to the article pages on each organization. --Mrn3 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a directory of organizations. Please review the WP:CORP criteria and only write articles if you can base them upon non-trivial sources independent of the subject organizations. Do not create articles by recycling the autobiographical blurb on an organization's own web site. Uncle G 18:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons above.Sharkface217 20:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this were a mere list I might agree with the nominator to delete and categorize, but it isn't. RFerreira 02:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep However some of the organizations should be turned into red-names with a link.--T. Anthony 13:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per eaolson, with whose position I am in almost complete agreement. WMMartin 17:24, 5 December 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wheelchair_Organizations&oldid=1086358239"