Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of members of the American College of Medical Informatics

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. —fetch ·comms 00:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of the American College of Medical Informatics[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY Although they all have presence on wiki, it would make a much better category. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear case of WP:NOTDIR and WP:SALAT. Having a wikipedia article is not an appropriate criterion for inclusion in a stand-alone list.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not an indiscriminate directory (it only includes the members who have Wikipedia articles rather than a copy of the entire membership listing), so WP:NOTDIR doesn't really apply. It describes a very specific collection of people, but there are enough of them that are already notable to make for a list of reasonable length, so I don't see the problem with WP:SALAT either. It provides extra information beyond what a category can provide (the election years), so it also makes more sense as a list than a category. I think this is ok according to WP:NLIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the issue is the inclusion criterion. If the title is "list of members", one would expect all members, regardless of whether they are wiki notable or not, and that does fall under WP:NOTDIR. If the elements of the list are actually fellows (exclusively), then it should be "list of fellows", and again, Wiki notability should not be in the inclusion criterion, and the discussion should be whether fellows of this particular society meet the guideline requirements for stand-alone list.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is that by trimming it down and making it discriminate, it's arguably factually incorrect, not including those who aren't on wikipedia. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 15:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buh? It says at the top exactly what it is, and includes a link to the college's directory. We have lots of lists with the same property, that they only include people notable enough to have bluelinks. And being discriminate is not a deletion criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, it seems strange to me, but it certainly doesn't carry any water in this deletion debate. Being discriminate is fine in terms of inclusion. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a list of Wikipedia pages, I suggest that we convert it to a category, and delete it from mainspace. 69.251.180.224 (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting down my own argument, WP:CLN says categories work with lists hand in hand. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - every entry on the list, and the topic of the list, is notable enough for Wikipedia. The list simply makes it easier to find the information that the user is looking for. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , but move to List of Fellows... Membership is nothing special. But Fellowship is, as for most learned societies. We would probably consider being a Fellow of this society as a signification contribution to notability, though not as one of the organizations where the fellowship or membership is intrinsically notable, like a national academy of science. . I am not sure that we should make lists (or for that matter categories) for every possible organization, listing members of that organization who happen to have Wikipedia articles (we do this for colleges and high schools, though, but I suggest we continue to treat that as an exception.) I think we should do this, however, for those positions which count significantly towards showing notability , and elected fellowship in a society such as this is such a position. As for duplicating a category, unless there is some really special reason not to, we should always do so. They;re different means of navigation; some prefer one, some the other. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 14 August 2010 (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.