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. Davewild (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Goldsmiths College alumni[edit]

List of Goldsmiths College alumni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This simply duplicates the category. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it can be edited so it doesn't duplicate the category, by adding years alive, profession etc. Siuenti (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It duplicates the category, so what? This being said, I am not convinced this is a worthy standalone list. Tigraan (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, completely standard list of notable alumni of a notable educational institute, passing WP:LISTPURP easily both as an informational list highly relevant to Goldsmiths, University of London and as a biographical index of people by shared educational background. The nomination is not valid in that it is contra WP:NOTDUP but doesn't even acknowledge this, let alone present a reason for not following that guideline here. We honestly should make such nominations eligible for speedy closes, as they are just a waste of the community's time and an undeniable failure of WP:BEFORE section A3. @Tigraan: There is no way we would ever delete this information entirely, which leaves us with either keeping as is or merging. It is clearly not small enough to fit in the parent college article, however, so keeping a standalone list is not merely "worthy" but the only practical option. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would point out that even if Goldsmiths is notable and every single person on the list is notable, I would still like to see evidence that Goldsmiths alumni are notable as a group (see WP:LISTN). So, yes, I see a way that "we would ever delete this information entirely". This being said, if the information is kept, then a standalone list is certainly the way to go.
    After some more digging I found those two sources: [1] [2] that kinda sorta discuss alumni as a group. Of course it is really hard to find a source about alumni that is not about the college itself so I would say that is enough, hence, keep.
    It may be necessary to trim down the list but that is for a talk page discussion, not AfD. Tigraan (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, LISTN is expressly limited to standalone lists, so no, it could not be applied to eliminate any alumni sublists within an article. Second, as LISTN itself acknowledges, it's only one way of analyzing lists. It is not and never has been a requirement that all lists must pass. Here, regarding a list that could either exist as a subsection of the school article, or as a standard navigational index of articles, it's just not applicable (as reading it in conjunction with other list guidelines should make clear, such as WP:LISTPURP, WP:CLN, and even the intro to WP:NOTDIR). Applying LISTN tends to make more sense (or perhaps only makes sense) when we're dealing with unusual classifications or groups of nonnotable people or things we otherwise wouldn't presume merit listing together absent finding sources that do so. Anyway, it's honestly one of our most poorly worded and confusing guidelines, tending more to mislead than to actually guide.

      Why do you think it would be "necessary to trim"? As you say, that's outside the scope of this AFD, but if these are all verifiably alumni of the college, and all merit articles, there's no basis at all for "trimming", beyond maybe excluding someone who only took one class. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • Although LISTN is indeed limited to standalone lists, the article we are considering here is such a list. If the "alumni as a group" thing was found non-notable as standalone (which I do not believe it is, based on the links I gave), then a list inside the article could still be relevant, there is no doubt on that. However, from what I understand of your reasoning, you assume that if the list inside the article is too long, then it ought to be splitted from the main article regardless of the "group".
        I think here the content guideline of notability should trump the organization content. I view WP:LISTN as a mere interpretation of WP:PAGEDECIDE, and as meaning that the consensus is against creating articles that depend on other articles for their existence. So if the list of alumni is both long and relevant but not standalone-notable, it ought to be trimmed down and fit into the main article, the organization duties ("do not unbalance the article") being subordinate to the content duties ("do not create non-notable articles").
        As for my trimming suggestion, first of all I would say I really was neutral about the idea. I thought that it could be in order to select only the most notable examples (per WP:LISTN) if it was found to be too long, but since then I realized it goes against WP:CSC #1 so I retract that. Tigraan (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • All of that ignores that LISTN itself says it is only one way to analyze lists (and its history, which I was regrettably involved in, has nothing to do with PAGEDECIDE) There's certainly no basis for reading it as trumping other guidelines. No, there is no consensus against split off lists based on the notability of the parent topic because they are considered part of that topic, not separate. A list is merely a presentation format, a SPLIT decision a bow to the practicalities of web page size. So to limit content based on that would be function following form. We do not limit alumni lists (or most lists) to only the "most notable" entries, whatever that means. They should contain the same entries (articles) as the corresponding categories. LISTN doesn't even say anything about "most notable entries" (it doesn't even require that entries be notable at all). postdlf (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per postdlf and WP:CLN. A list of notable alumni is a standard part of any school article, and this one is long enough to warrant a spinoff. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Qualifies as per WP:NOTDUP and WP:LISTPURP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I note that several editors are citing "NOTDUPE" as a reason to keep. I also note that the top of that guidelines explicitly says it is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", and that no-one has said why, in this case, we need such duplicaton, how it helps our readers, or what the list offers them over and beyond what they can get from the category. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are reversing the burden of proof. WP:NOTDUP states that, as a general rule, simply duplicating a category is not a reason for deletion of a list: "Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Though "occasional exceptions may apply", the essence of occasional exceptions is that they are rare and the guideline should not have to be reconsidered in every single instance. If you claim this is one of the instances where there should be an exception, please state why - because what you have written so far could be applied to every list that ever duplicated a category. Tigraan (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Andy is merely quoting the boilerplate caveat that is present on every Wikipedia guideline, and not giving us any reason against applying it here. So we still do not have a deletion argument beyond "Andy Mabbett does not agree with "NOTDUPE" [sic] (for reasons yet to be expressed)." postdlf (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have added references to the article, something that cannot be done with categories. Also, the entries can be expanded with short descriptions, images can be added, etc., also things that cannot be done with cats. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...as the very first comment pointed out was possible. Andy's insistence that "no-one has said why..." is plainly mistaken, and he honestly should withdraw if this is the level of effort he's going to put into this nomination. postdlf (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2015 (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.