Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engineering Institute of Canada Fellows


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Engineering Institute of Canada Fellows

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This list is going, if used "correctly" to become rather silly. The article says "Over the years, the numbers of elected Fellows have varied from a few to fifty or more. Current practice is to elect up to twenty Fellows annually."

While some of the Fellows are doubtless notable, this is one of the few lists that would be better managed as a mixture of Category plus decent attribution of their Fellowship in their own article. I usually argue for coexistence of list and category, but this is not one of those times.

As it stands it is tending towards an unwieldy list and an indiscriminate collection of information. WP is not a directory of Fellows of this doubtless august body Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fellowship of a group such as this probably indicates notability. However, the Engineering Institute of Canada is not the Canadian Academy of Engineering, the national academy for engineering in Canada. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Eastmain (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  —Eastmain (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep probably does constitute notability, so a mostly red linked list like this is very appropriate to show the articles needed. As there is a bio sketch on their site for each of them, this should be possible. We obviously need an article on the Institute. And we need a category for the members. The number of fellows is comparable or smaller than the number in the actual national academy. We need both a list and category there also. I note that the overwhelming majority of members of the (US) National Academy of Engineering do not have articles either. DGG (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As above, the Institute is notable, and we should have an article on it as well (or maybe move this there to get things started?)  The list of members is long, but not so long as to be completely unwieldy (only 30k).  This is not an indiscriminate grouping, but rather a specific listing of prominent professionals. Cool3 (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that I believe (and may be corrected) that all previous !votes have not recognised that Current practice is to elect up to twenty Fellows annually. This means that each table row ought to have 20 or so entries.  Currently this article does not.  Now, having 20 or so entries per row would be unwieldy, and would also become very much a directory.  That the institute may be notable is not at all the same thing as the list of Fellows being notable.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Edit It seems to be notable but i do think it needs some editing done to it.  Cheers  Kyle1278 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.