Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian post-secondary mascots

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian post-secondary mascots[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Useless list, the mascot can be mentioned on the university articles. It also only has 2 sources, of which 1 is Facebook and the other one is about Stfx university, so except 1 university everything is unsourced. » Shadowowl | talk 11:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is hardly encyclopedic. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This list is restricted to public and non-profit post-secondary institutions, a very finite list. These characters are a key part of branding for athletic programs, they are how the institutions represent themselves. How is this "indiscriminate"? -- Zanimum (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:LC 1 though 4, 8, and 10. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 1, this guideline seems entirely based on opinion.
- 2, within the United States, there are regularly mainstream media lists about university mascots. Canada has a less developed athletic system--that's not bad, considering the amateur athlete exploitation in America--but that shouldn't disqualify the topic.
- 3, as there are finite public and non-profit schools in Canada, I don't see this as indiscriminate
- 4, these are inherently verifiable.
- 8, if there was an encyclopaedia that included information on universities at the level Wikipedia does, it could justifiably include this.
- 10, could you clarify how membership in this list requires original research? All of these characters could be referenced to school or community newspapers. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of reliable sources and WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at the newly expanded references for British Columbia, @Ajf773:? Extensive reliable sources exist, just simply aren't there yet. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Essay WP:LC describes well how contributors should assess the worthiness of a list as a Wikipedia stand-alone article. The fact that not one single item on the contested list has its own article in Wikipedia is quite telling about the list's notability and its worthiness, both. -The Gnome (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting list, but I agree that the information it contains could and should be covered within the appropriate institution articles. Strikerforce^Talk 19:45, 27 July 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.