Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dartmouth College student groups (2nd nomination)

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. BigDom (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth College student groups[edit]

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

Non-notable directory listing, this is simply a listing a groups not notable enough to have their own pages. Has grown even more bloated since the first no consensus AFD. Tagged for notability for 3 years. Hairhorn (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What makes this any less notable than the List of Yale University student organizations. I believe that each of these groups may not be notable on their own; however, as a whole I believe they have notability.Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this could possibly be broken down and turned in to a list of Dartmouth student organizations. Some of the more notable organizations could receive a short phrase describing the organization.Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced the Yale list should be there either, per Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. And as far as I can tell, "cumulative notability" isn't recognized around here. Hairhorn (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - needs independent sources to show some sort of external notability of the Darthmouth student organizations as a whole. Otherwise it's a violation of WP:NOTDIR. Either way, needs cleanup of external links. Same applies to List of Yale University student organizations.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Substantial content, needs sourcing. Packing minor groups this way strikes me as an effective way to provide useful information about organizations of marginal independent notability. Carrite (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I tried to point out before, a lot of non-notable entities don't "add up" to make one notable one. Hairhorn (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if this were called a "List"? In any event, there are in-links for 6 Wikipedia articles here, it's not like everything is trivial. This is an article of substance and a highly useful subpage of Dartmouth College. Carrite (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Such compilation pages are a useful breakout from the main article and provide a sensible home for societies that, individually, would not be notable. Sure it needs way better sourcing but that is an editorial matter. What is of more concern to me are the pages on individual societies that don't demonstrate notability: Dartmouth College Marching Band, Dartmouth Outing Club, Sphinx (senior society) etc Bring those here and, in their present state, I would support their deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful compilation.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might seem odd, but being "useful" has never been enough to make it into an encyclopedia. Hairhorn (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close Discussion as either keep or no consensus. It is clear that there are fairly unanimous keeps other than one "weak delete" from an IP address. Other than that, the only person pushing for delete is Hairhorn. I also am beginning to wonder what his/her reasonings for desiring this page to be deleted are. The page has 1434 views in the past 30 days; this is clearly enough to show that there is great interest in the page as well. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about me. Feel free to check my edit history if you have any doubts about my motivation. Also, "lots of traffic" isn't in itself reason to keep a page, nor is open debate "pushing" deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2011 (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.