Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Professorships at the University of Glasgow


 * 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 of the debate was Keep. Prodego talk  02:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Professorships at the University of Glasgow
Also nominating every article on that list and the corresponding category. Universities are important, but I think that having articles on each professorship with a list of people that have held the position is way overkill Hirudo 06:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * These articles are also being considered for deletion:
 * Regius Professor of Medicine and Theraputics, Glasgow, Professor of Divinity, Glasgow, Professor of Humanity, Glasgow, Professor of Mathematics, Glasgow, Professor of Greek, Glasgow, Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages, Glasgow, Regius Professor of Law, Glasgow, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Glasgow, Regius Professor of Anatomy, Glasgow, Professor of Logic and Rhetoric, Glasgow, Professor of Moral Philosophy, Glasgow, Professor of Natural Philosophy, Glasgow, Regius Professor of Astronomy, Glasgow, Regius Professor of Zoology, Glasgow, Regius Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Glasgow, Regius Professor of Botany, Glasgow, Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism, Glasgow, Regius Professor of English Language and Literature, Glasgow, John Elder Professor of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Glasgow, Adam Smith Professor of Political Economy, Glasgow, Professor of Modern History, Glasgow, Marshall Professor of French Language and Literature, Glasgow, Gardiner Professor of Music, Edwards Professor of Medieval History


 * Delete per nom. Way too much! Yanksox 06:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think if you want to nominate every article, they need to have the afd1 template added to them pointing them to this listing. As for my opinion on the issue, there is no reason to have a separate article on each professorship or to mention every non-notable professor's name.  Merge and condense would be my suggestion. Perhaps this whole mess could be userfied to User:Veritas1984's userspace where he can refactor and re-present it. BigDT 06:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yikes if you're right that would be a lot of work adding it to all of them (and then possibly a lot of work removing them if they're kept). I'll check with an admin and will add them if needed -- Hirudo 06:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't that bad -  List of Professorships at the University of Glasgow  needs to be added to the top of each of them ... see How to list multiple related pages for deletion BigDT 06:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's done BigDT 07:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Impressive. Thanks a lot -- Hirudo 07:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. An old university such as Glasgow has had some interesting prominant Professors and a list of the established and Regius chairs with their date of foundation is important and interesting. I see no reason why they can not all be kept. I would support this however only for universities established say before 1800. --Bduke 09:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep (obviously). Regius professors are notable. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 11:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly notable topics, and I hope we will get more articles and lists like these (we have them already for Oxford, Cambridge and the Gresham professorships, see Category:Professorships), but some limit (as suggested by Bduke) may be reasonable. up+land 12:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bduke, Duncharris and Uppland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Concur with Bduke's suggestion also.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I haven't gone through the full list, but some of these seem clearly notable. I would be willing to consider some of the lesser ones on a case-by-case basis though. ScottW 18:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a list. -- cds(talk) 22:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT does not make this simple statement. If it did, why do we have featured lists? --Bduke 22:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is what I personally see it as. -- cds(talk) 22:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Self-evidently not indiscriminate. They are self-limiting and clearly defined (unlike List of unusual deaths say). Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete it is just a lot of pieces of info, if one is notable (plays a certain role in international academia, maybe) we can consider it. Lists of people who held a certain position in a hierarchy opens an interesting floodgate: imagine an article for every position at every university, government office and important organization for every country in the world - lets add them when we have something interesting to write and not just because we have a list to put there. Lundse 23:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and Condense per BigDT. – Zawersh 06:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete' There are far better ways to handle this kind of information. Consider a navigational template or a succession box. ~ trialsanderrors 02:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bduke. Nothing indiscriminate about this - it is clearly defined per Angusmclellan's argument, and noteable per Duncharris. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is exactly what lists and categories are for. FeloniousMonk 22:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- per FM, KC and Dunc &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all -- remember that WP is not paper. It looks like a lot of cruft when you list all those articles together, but I see no reason why some poor administrator should be forced to merge dozens of articles into one.  Truth is, I might vote to delete some of these, or possibly the list, but I think separate debate is needed.  Mango juice talk 20:17, 8 June 2006 (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.