Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of University of Manitoba alumni


 * 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   speedy keep. T. Canens (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

List of University of Manitoba alumni

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails to cite sources. Any sources. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, while there is a real problem with the list lacking references, it's no reason to throw the list out. Notable alumni is a standard list of content for educational institutions.   PK  T (alk)  16:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:VAGUEWAVE. I don't think you understand when WP:OTHERSTUFF is actually a valid retort.  It isn't here.  postdlf (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with postdlf here, WP:otherstuff is intended to defeat the "pokemon comparison," when the comparison is irrelevant. In this case it's a more valid comparison to say "we have these for other institutions, so why should that university be notable and not this one?" 65.29.47.55 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. I just added footnotes for the As and Bs, took less than 10 minutes despite my slow typing skills.  Nearly all of the names on this list are bluelinks, and a random check of articles suggests that the U of Manitoba connection is mentioned, and sourced, in the vast majority of them.   Instead of wasting time with this AfD proceeding, why not put the same time into improving this easily improvable article?--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like someone needs to review point #4 in WP:BEFORE. -- &oelig; &trade; 18:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * With that many people on this list, it isn't reasonable to look for sources for them all. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming WP:BEFORE says an article may be listed for deletion if you can't confirm that sources exist for every statement of fact within it? Can you show us why that is recognized deletion practice, or explain why it should be?  postdlf (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —Arxiloxos (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  —Arxiloxos (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons stated by PKT and Arxiloxos. --Orlady (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per above. A completely meritless AFD nom because there was absolutely no reason to believe this was unverifiable information.  We do not delete articles for fixable problems, and the lack of references was obviously fixable here, given that the educational background of notable subjects is completely common information and a completely common list topic.  Within four hours of this nom, 18 separate references were added, thus rendering moot even the insufficient deletion rationale provided above.  This is not the first time the nom has listed this kind of list for deletion for the same reason; see Articles for deletion/List of University of British Columbia alumni, which was also closed as keep with no one supporting the nom.  This should not happen again.  postdlf (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that just proves what a good idea the nomination was. The editors who added unsourced information about people, are the ones at fault.  Some of the sourcing is rather lacking.  When did a personal resume become a reliable source?  Unsourced lists like this(was) run the risk of causing circular sourcing.  Sadly, there are sources out there that are foolish enough to use Wikipedia as their source, especially for basic bio stuff like this.  Really, a list like this should be properly sourced from the very beginning.  If there are a few sources given, than an editor can just remove those names.  But, if the whole thing is unsourced, a deletion nomination works well.  Trying to source other people's unsourced additions is really a waste of time.  It just encourages more irresponsible contributions.  If people know their unsourced additions will be removed, they might source as they add material.  Finally, it's worth noting, that it's now policy to delete BLPs that have no sources.  So, it makes sense to also delete pages that are all about people (mainly living we hope) if there are no sources.  I realize this page has sources now, so I'm not advocating deletion, but just noting that there were legitimate grounds when the nomination was made.  --Rob (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. AFD is not cleanup. Not to mention that the sources for this list are incredibly easy to find.  Editors should spend their energy contributing, not threatening other editors' work.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The onus is on the person adding someone to the list to provide a reliable source. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, BLP in no way compels the deletion of a list that is unsourced when not all of its entries are living; at most, it would compel the removal of the unsourced living entries. It reaches no farther than that.  Given that the university opened in 1877, I doubt there are only living notable alumni.  postdlf (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we're not compelled, but we can, and I think should. I brought up BLP, especially BLPPROD, mainly to counter the notion that "We do not delete articles for fixable problems".  Actually, we do, in number of ways.  With contentious material about living people there's an urgency.  With the rest, we should still require verification eventually.  This page has been around for years, without any sources.  It's about time.  It takes so little time for people to find sources when they add material (as the source is fresh in their mind).  It's very difficult to add *good* sources later, as shown by the crappy quality of some sources add recently, some of which are worse than no source, because we give the illusion of proper sourcing.  The reality of the matter, is that in many cases, there really is no reliable 3rd party source that confirms somebody's education.  And, all we have to go on is what the person said about them self.  And of course, one rarely finds a source that proves something isn't true, so unless we remove all unsourced claims, it's hard to remove unverifiable claims. --Rob (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Poor sourcing can be fixed; the ultimate argument is, "can this article stand apart from simply being an entry on University of Manitoba"? It's almost long enough to warrant being forked from UofM, so (to me) it's worth keeping. tedder (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Obvious speedy keep. The objection has been answered. It was not a good reason for deletion in any case, because the criterion is sourceable, and the nom never made the least attempt to try--or even check for those that would be found in at least some of the many linked articles. Thivierr's argument is altogether wrong : we  do not delete an entire article because some but not all  of the content is unsourced information about living people, and for good measure that someone is an alumnus of this University is not contentious information in any conceivable sense of the term.  That's extending the meaning of BLP to ludicrousness in several different directions.   DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2011 (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.