Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable collegiate a cappella groups


 * 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 merge, then redirect. — Kurykh  01:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

List of notable collegiate a cappella groups

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This list is redundant, as List of collegiate a cappella groups already exists. The latter is broader in scope and includes groups that are probably never going to become notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, but I think it's still ok to include them in such a list. This list, however, is unnecessary. DLand TALK 00:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect List of collegiate a cappella groups to this. This is a more appropriate name IMO.  Giggy  UCP 00:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups, per DLand's argument. "Notable" is not necessary in list titles. User:Argyriou (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per above editors. We only need one list. -- Charlene 00:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with Giggy. Full disclosure: I started this article. This list is superior to the other, which violates WP:NOT.  To Agyriou's point, notable is a quite common concept in list articles: there are a couple of hundred in WP, from List of notable Iranian women to List of notable human genes.  Notable and non-notable even coexist elsewhere: see List of asteroids and List of notable asteroids.  There has to be some way to discriminate list entries to avoid liscruft in WP. UnitedStatesian 01:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment; Argyriou is correct, lists shouldn't use words like "notable" in their title. The naming convention states The name or title of the list should simply be List of _ _ (for example list of Xs). The other lists you mentioned are also named incorrectly, and I have corrected List of notable Iranian women to List of Iranian women (I'll propose a name change for the other two lists later). If, as you suggest, List of collegiate a cappella groups violates WP:NOT then that one should be nominated for AFD. Masaruemoto 02:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Question I looked all over WP:LIST and couldn't find the text you quoted; can you point me to the page it is on? I think we do need notable in many lists so we avoid encouragng the addition if listcrft to list articles. UnitedStatesian 03:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * answer There are better ways of discouraging listcruft. People will add non-notable entries to lists regardless of the title of the list, and regardless of any warnings at the top of the page, either in the text or in comments in the source. If the list is defined as limited to those which have entries in Wikipedia, it's easy to clean up, but it pretty much has to be manually cleaned. User:Argyriou (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups, we don't need two lists. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of collegiate a cappella groups and redirect. By definition, I mean, read the WP:5P!!! Notability should be implied for all content in wikipedia. Dangerously close to listcruft, and WP:CFORK. Please read both WP:LISTV and WP:LIST. If List of collegiate a cappella groups contains non-notable collegiate a cappella groups then it is a content issue to be debated there: personally I oppose non-notable content in general, and if I had time I would start to remove content like there were no tomorrow. If not, it face a serious AfD challenge itself.


 * BTW, List of notable Iranian women redirects to List of Iranian women, and the use of the word "notable" in the redirect is to make it sound more specific in a web search, which is what redirects are for. Here we are talking about two separate lists, not an alternate title, so the comparison is completely irrelevant and quaint. Thanks! --Cerejota 02:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: UnitedStatesian said, quite correctly, that there are hundreds of list articles with the word "notable" in their titles. Iranian women notwithstanding, this is clearly a larger problem in Wikipedia, one that should be addressed on a much larger scale (i.e. finding every single such list and removing the word "notable" one by one - a big job).--DLand TALK 03:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom. This is a useless duplicate. VanTucky  (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of collegiate a cappella groups and Redirect. Oysterguitarist 04:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect as noted by DLand and others. -- DS1953 talk 04:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per almost everybody and Trim the URLs out of the resulting article. WP isn't a web directory, and long lists of external links are not okay. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think this article should be deleted permenently. All this groups on this list are only there because some member of the group decided that their group is "notable." Nowhere will you find someone who believes that these groups, and only these groups, should be on this elite list. (the previous unsigned comment by 163.151.2.10)
 * Fully agree with this analysis. A better name for this list would simply be "List of collegiate a cappella groups that happen to have a Wikipedia article that hasn't been deleted yet" (we're looking at you, UPenn Off The Beat).  I think we should have an article listing actually-notable groups&mdash;once there becomes a way to judge them.  Right now, no group in existence meets notability guidelines, meaning either the world of college acapella needs to get with the program, or we need to develop new guidelines for them.  Either way, the current list is meaningless.  Delete. ~ Marblespire 17:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the parent article as possible duplication.--JForget 15:21, 22 July 2007 (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.