Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of San Francisco 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 delete (info has now been re-added into the [arent article, so nothing will be lost). Proto :: ►  10:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

University of San Francisco alumni
Unnecessary list. There's already a category of the same name, and none of the people on this list have articles, which makes me question if those people are truly "notable" as the article contends. fuzzy510 01:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've now wikified all the names - several names do have articles already, some of them inarguably notable. Bwithh 01:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, expand Alumni lists are more useful in some ways than alumni categories - more easily customizable for sorting and writing summary notes, and easier to manage and expand. I find alumni categories much more unwieldy to use. This list needs expanding and proper sorting, but there's nothing wrong with the page per se. Several names already have articles. Bwithh 01:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I generally look with disfavor on list articles such as this, believing that the items therein found are properly comprised by a category (here, for instance, Category:University of San Francisco alumni) and that those for whom biographical entries cannot reasonably be expected to exist ought not to merit inclusion in an enumeration of alumni (such that the preferring of a category to a list should not result in the loss of any encyclopedic content), but it seems well settled that lists such as this are properly in mainspace (toward which, see, e.g., the existence of Category:Alumni by university in the United States, which includes better than 200 articles of identical form); if a consensus ought to develop to the contrary, the discussion relative to such issue ought not to take place at a singular/isolated AfD. Joe 04:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's possible that someone is verifiably an alumnus, being described as such in sources other than straight directories of alumni, but doesn't satisfy the WP:BIO criteria. In such cases, the person doesn't warrant a separate article of xyr own, but can nonetheless be mentioned on a list, without xyr name being linked. Uncle G 11:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Copysan 06:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete since User:Trialsanderrors merged em, this page is now totally redundant. Copysan 10:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge per CopySan. If the list gets considerably longer, remake the page. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs)
 * Keep and expand per Bwithh. See User:VegaDark/Sandbox for an example of what this list could look like if enough time was spent on it. VegaDark 10:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * THat is very nice. Good job. But I don't think USF's famous alumni article is long enough to warrant that kind of treatment at this time. If it were expanded, then yes, a separate page is perfectly fine. I'd rather merge first, and recreate when the section gets too long, rather than leaving a short page there and hoping people expand it into a proper page length. Copysan 06:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per CopySan. The list is short, and there's room for it in the U article. No separate article justified at this point. Nick Graves 22:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per CopySan. It seems to work for most other schools.  Montco 06:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I merged the ones listed here back into the USF article. Not sure why there was no overlap between the two lists. ~ trialsanderrors 07:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete What is meant, is a list of USF alumni that people here happen to have added, and there is no evidence that is was added comprehensively or critically. Unless we decide to locate and include list of all the thousands, there is no particular reason to think that the people here are as a group more notable than any other simililarly sized group. Cateogory has the advantage that the ones in there are notable enough to be written about here.DGG 00:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant to category. Notable people should have articles and non-notable ones shouldn't be included on lists like this.  Eluchil404 09:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per preceding comments. WMMartin 17:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete The article subject completely fails notability standard. -- Rydra Wong 04:42, 8 December 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.