Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Universities with Soil Science Curriculum

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Universities with Soil Science Curriculum[edit]

I can't believe someone would create such a useless list. Are we going to create a list of universities for every subject? Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per non. Archivey (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and Speedy close Nominator listed no policy reasons why this article should be deleted. Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions WP:USEFUL states:
But just saying something is useful or useless without providing context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. Remember, you need to tell us why the article is useful or useless, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies.
Article meets WP:LIST.
Just because it is not valuable to the editor, does not mean it is not valuable to someone else. Nominators reasoning is short sighted. If I wanted to go into school in this area I would love this list. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. travb (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems useful and potentially encyclopedic although it tends a bit towards a directory. It has some potential for improvement to make it more than just a category. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is soil science different from Geology and wouldn't this basically include 80% of the world's universities if complete?- Mgm|^(talk) 23:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect soil science and geology aren't the same thing. But I'm not an expert. Are they? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not the same. Such a list is likely valuable to someone intending to specialize in this discipline, which is offered at only a relatively small subset of universities, U.S. and international, the apparent length of the list notwithstanding.PBarak (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a list without serious context, and which won't be much other than an ad for those universities. I see nothing in the article which presents anything of any use, and while USEFUL alone isn't any good, a list that does nothing at all but list something which cannot be contextualized is trivia, and trivia isn't acceptable as the basis of an article. Further, it does NOT pass WP:LIST, as it meets none of the accepted categories. ThuranX (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Per WP:LIST, the list is a "valuable information source" for somebody searching this topic.--J.Mundo (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. 66.57.190.166 (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#DIR. Also from WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a "mere collections of external links or Internet directories" Scapler (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with PBarak in that I think this is a useful list, given that soil science is not found everywhere. It's not really an ad, as long as future expansion of the entries is kept in check (as is advised on the talk page, advice which I followed in an edit just now). As for the speedy close which was called for, well, there's no need for that--the process is fine. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2009 (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.