Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravians


 * 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   delete. Sandstein is correct, so the article should be deleted regardless of whether the nominator cited that rationale. causa sui (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Reversing my close and resolving as keep per peer review on Deletion_review. --causa sui (talk) 02:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ravians

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Should be on the main article of the school and it would be best if Ravians became a redirect to that article. Quiggers1P (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Such a list fulfils WP:SAL and there is precedence by plenty of suitable lists of alumni for other institutions (such as List of Old Aitchisonians), so long as they meet WP:NLIST with suitable citations and are non-trivial there is no need to merge. --Fæ (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see why this "should" be in the main article of the school.  Nor has any rationale been presented.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Government College University where a more complete and better organised list already exists. TerriersFan (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would recommend the reverse. The naff and mostly unsourced and unverified embedded list of names in the Government College University article is so long that it dwarfs the rest of the content. I suggest it is split out and merged to this stand alone list article. Fæ (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merging unsourced content to an unsourced list isn't much of an improvement. What is needed, as you suggested, is a sourced and copyedited list. What we don't need are two competing unsourced lists. Better to have one good list (and I don't care which), and redirect either way. TerriersFan (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or, if sourced, merge to Government College University. This is an unsourced list of potentially living persons, requiring deletion per WP:BLP if it is not made verifiable by adding a reliable source.  Sandstein   09:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 11:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't agree with Sandstein. WP:BLP properly applies to unsourced negative information about living persons.  It's not negative information about someone to call them an alumnus of a university.  I broadly concur with Fae on this.— S Marshall  T/C 11:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy says: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The material is contentious by virtue of being nominated for deletion.  Sandstein   14:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It was not nominated for deletion because the substance of it was contentious.  It was nominated for one reason, and one reason only -- because of where the material was located.  Nothing at all about the material itself was indicated as being contentious.  In fact, nom supported the inclusion of the material ... just in another article.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not seeing any policy-based assertion from the nominator. "Should be" and "would be" are not reasons to raise nomination for deletion. On the merits, I see User:Sandstein's concern. While I'd prefer improvement and sourcing for the list, the BLP standard User:S Marshall raises is actually "contentious" or "challenged or likely to be challenged". Nothing like that here. A click through of the individual biographies shows almost all contain an assertion of being an alumni of this notable institution. Some of those assertions are sourced. Category:Ravians demonstrates there's significant room for pagespace expansion. If there are BLP issues, they are on the pages of the individual biographies, not an alumni list. This list should be improved, not deleted. Template:USMALists displays about a dozen lists of alumni, many featured lists, all from one insitution. BusterD (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the college. There is already a list of notable alumni on the college article which is the usual practise. A separate article isn't appropriate and may end up as a long list of non notable people. Also - no refs. Szzuk (talk) 18:18, 17 July 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.