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) talk to !dave 18:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of EQUIS accredited institutions[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very dynamic list. We don't need to guide which university is accredited with what through a list per WP:NOTGUIDE. This comes under WP:LISTCRUFT. Störm (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another similar one:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Störm (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First of all, there is nothing in WP:NOTGUIDE which applies to this list. Second, WP:LISTCRUFT is not only a mere essay, it also doesn't apply, since this list is not indiscriminate; it has perfectly binary inclusion criteria, and it's also not trivial. First, let's talk about notability. The only relevant guideline here is WP:LISTN, which tells us that a list is notable "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." That is obviously going to be the case with any legit accrediting consortium, and it's the case with this one. For instance, Newsweek, Financial Times, and so on. Furthermore, WP:CLN tells us that categories and lists complement one another. There are tons of categories based on accreditation association, just for instance, Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by accreditation association. In short, this list is notable, it's not a guide, it's not cruft, it's the kind of thing which complements many existing categories, and so it should be kept. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything needs a list. It will be better served by a category not a list. Störm (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Well said 192.160.216.52. I know AFD is not a Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion where we count up the Keep and Delete comments and that the one that is represented more is the final outcome, but rather a censuses on which side presents the better argument. 192.160.216.52 presented such a very compelling and valid argument that I cannot add anything other than to say Keep.ShoesssS ^Talk 14:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep kudos for explaining how this is a valid list. I personally think this is a valid list of bluelinked educational organisations (sub-faculties are not notable, but all the universities are). No one seems to give WP:CLN any respect, but it does apply here. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging participant from recent similar AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of universities with computer engineering programs. @Michig:, @Mark the train:, @Ajf773:, @Cordless Larry:, @Johnpacklambert:. Störm (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not very comparable, this is a specific accreditation the university holds. Not some random course it offers. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not only not comparable, it's WP:CANVASsing, as every participant pinged voted to delete on that AfD. Since it's not comparable, this isn't a neutral notification. The last time I pointed this kind of behavior out, Störm took me to ANI. Maybe this time they'll have the decency to withdraw this nomination, the integrity of which has been hopelessly compromised by this contrapolicy move. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. LISTCRUFT only reasonably refers to keeping a list of minor unimportant things. Everything listed here is notable or potentially notable, and the factor of being accredited by a particular accreditor is a key part of their `significance.

It should also be a category. The two are complementary. Categories are automatically populated, but lists can give some additional information, in this case, a location and the affiliated university. Sometimes one is helpful for navigation, sometimes another. Of the arguments for deletion given in the nomination

"We don't need to guide which university is accredited with what through a list " that's a matter of opinion. I think that in general we need every rational navigational aide. the nature of the accreditation can best be see by a list of what they accredit. What one editor may or may not need is not a criterion for deletion. If I made WP according to what I think important or needed, it would have about 1/2 as much content, and similarly I suppose for everyone else--but a different 1/2 for each of us.

"Very dynamic list" Is that supposed to be a criticism. I suppose it means that the list will be hard to maintain. I don't see why--as we add the articles, we maintain the list. It will need a check every few years to see if it is still the case, but that also applies to every individual article that lists it. Eventually, Wikidata will solve this and most other updating problems DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful list, not indiscriminate, not listcruft. Szzuk (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.