Deletion of List of golf courses in the United Kingdom

Comment: and remove the redlinks, as AfD is not for cleanup. The list has a clear inclusion criteria, and having a category is not a valid reason for deletion, per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:CLN)

Comment: then prune the red links and the redirects that do not lead to golf course articles – per  relative to :Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United Kingdom. This is a functional navigational aid that is actually superior to the category, because additional content can be added that category pages do not support. Pruning the red links and stated redirects solves any  issues, and red links for golf courses that meet notability guidelines that do not have articles can be added as long as supporting references from reliable sources are also added
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:NOTDUPE||WP:NOTDIRECTORY)

Comment: per , , , and . What a huge mess. We are not a web host to list a whole bunch of golf clubs, most of which are private, many are not notable, and all of which cater to the top 1%. |I've seen many complaints about having too many articles about the aristocracy, and while I don't agree completely with it, |that seems to be the consensus. I would be willing to change my mind if given good reasons
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:LIST||WP:NOTWEBHOST||WP:NOTDIR||WP:OUTCOMES||WP:CCC)

Comment: as index of articles per  and complement to :Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United Kingdom per . Removing any redlink entry that does not actually merit an article would completely obviate the nom's conmplaints, and is a matter for cleanup, not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:LISTPURP||WP:CLN)