Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Brigham Young University faculty


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Brigham Young University faculty

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Hi! I am a new user, and I am not sure that I am doing this totally correctly, so apologizes if this is incorrect. I was recently cleaning up the Brigham Young University article, and found this link. If I looked at this correctly, it seems outdated and does not seem to be commonly edited. I simple list of faculty at a university, whether complete or incomplete, does not seem to be appropriate content for an Encyclopedia. At best, this link is a highlight of a few randomly selected professors, or else a long list that would be more appropriately linked to on the institutions website. 2beornot57 (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose If you're a new user, perhaps you should consult a more experienced editor before nominating articles for deletion and "cleaning up". Trust me, it will save you some time in the long run.  While this list needs work, it is hardly worthy of deletion on any grounds as it contains sources, covers an area of interest, and does not unnecessarily duplicate another list.  Lists like these are common for universities to show notable faculty members both past and present, though some include them with their notable alumni in a "List of Generic University people" article where there are fewer names on both alumni and faculty.  They are hardly "randomly selected" any more than a notable alumni list is "randomly selected" alumni.  --JonRidinger (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith, please. Nobody is required to consult someone before nominating an article, nor otherwise get permission.  Regarding editors, I'd observe that more experience is proportional to more reliability, but not more intelligence.  Mandsford (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nothing bad faith about what I said. Bad faith would assume he's doing it purely to cause trouble something I never implied.  I was referring to his "I'm not sure I'm doing this correctly" and other unsureties about the process and even if the list is appropriate.  If you're going to nominate an article for deletion you should be pretty sure about why and be able to cite specific policies and guidelines the article violates.  Never did I say he needed permission from another editor or that he is required to do so; I'm only saying if you're not sure, ask those who know the policies before nominating an article for deletion (or any big change for that matter).  It saves a lot of time and is part of working together and learning as an editor.  In this case, deleting an article is purely a policy issue; it should either be here or it shouldn't, so more experienced editors will probably be familiar with the various policies and the whole deletion debate process.  The BYU articles have their own Wikiproject and a team of editors who are very familiar with the various policies and guidelines here who I have found are more than happy to answer questions and work with other editors.  --JonRidinger (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Okay, thanks for letting me know. When I said "cleaning up," what I meant was correcting some facts that I knew to be inaccurate, semi-accurate, or correcting grammar. However, if I did mess anything up please let me know. Thanks. --2beornot57 (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * keep Highly notable university. The list is encyclopedic and easily managed. The list very much belongs here, and the nominator has given no reason to delete.User:JonRidinger makes good points in his "oppose". Dloh  cierekim  03:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What Mandsford said. ;) Dloh  cierekim  13:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see a real basis for deletion, other than that this might open the door to similar "List of ____ faculty" articles. However, it's more detailed than "a simple list", and it isn't  a group of "randomly selected professors".  Basically, this is a list of notable (i.e. they have their own article on Wikipedia) BYU professors and, more importantly, a description of why they are notable.  If it were nothing more than a list of blue links, then it would qualify as the classic indiscriminate list, but it has sufficient discriminating information.  Mandsford (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if it were a list of blue links alone, that would not make it indiscriminate; a list limited to those people who have WP articles is by its very nature discriminating, because our coverage is limited to those who are notable. A list of all of their faculty, that is what would be indiscriminate.  DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We disagree on the definition of "indiscriminate", which is subject to many different interpretations. However, we agree that this is not an indiscriminate list.  Wikipedia's standards have gradually increased, and I think that the author recognized that slapping together a lazy list of blue links doesn't work anymore.    Mandsford (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * keep per above comments. I would encourage the nominator to utilize WP:BYU or the list's talk page to propose improvements on the list be done. —Eustress talk 14:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, but I'd be more comfortable if this was clearly a list of the Notable members of the faculty. As written, and as titled, this list purports to be a list of the faculty - and, by that logic, the School of Nursing has no faculty members. I have no objection to a blue-linked list of those faculty members notable enough for articles, but we should be clear that that is what we're listing. Props to the nominator for highlighting these issues. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have inserted the missing word in the first sentence of the article. (we normally omit it from titles, because notable is understood of anything in WP).  DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 6 April 2010 (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.