Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of faculty members at the Institute for Advanced Study


 * 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). Qst 16:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

List of faculty members at the Institute for Advanced Study

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Merge with Institute for Advanced Study: In wikipedia there is already an article titled Institute for Advanced Study. A list on the faculty members do not deserve for a separate article. This info can easily go into Institute for Advanced Study article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant against Category:Institute for Advanced Study faculty. Tevildo (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and also Merge. Per nominator and Tevildo.  Malinaccier (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, more unfounded listphobia. There are hundreds of faculty lists for educational institutions already, many of them far less notable than the IAS, one of the premier pure-research institutions in the world. Lists are superior to a category because they can give information like dates of tenure and professional role. This could be improved with sources and more information, but it's already far too long to merge into the IAS article itself. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - this list adds information about field and tenure beyond what could be stored in a category list, and all of the redlinks on this list are highly notable scientists that should have their own article.  There's much more that could be done to raise the quality toward Featured lists status, including referencing, but as a list/article on its own it is certainly worthy of being kept.  &mdash; Catherine\talk 22:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Categories are inferior; they cannot be organized and they cannot contain the additional information on each listing that is found here.  This list is too long to fit comfortably into the main article.  The Institute for Advanced Study is important, and a large proportion of the people on this list warrant their own articles.  The fact that the Institute's faculty consists largely of people warranting their own articles is in itself notable. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Better kept separate from the article on the Institute. The organization is different. This would be an excellent topic for a featured list. The information already in it cannot readily be put in a category, and a category cannot grow the way a list article can. Fg2 (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pretty much a textbook example of an encyclopedic list. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, for reasons already given by others, and suggest that nominator should read WP:LIST and WP:CLS before nominating any more lists for deletion. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - objective inclusion criteria; long enough to require its own separate article; contains additional information that not appear in equivalent category. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2008 (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.