Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Division I schools that have never sponsored football

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.--Wizardman 03:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Division I schools that have never sponsored football

I created this article over a year ago, mainly to get this list off College football. If I had then the knowledge of Wikipedia policy I do now, I would have simply deleted the material as indiscriminate information. The intro provides no context, and makes no assertion that this information is important or useful. If you check the history, you'll see that almost all of the activity since I created the article has been housekeeping. In short, I don't think a list of schools that haven't done something notable is notable. Djrobgordon 09:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article meets WP:LC in the following ways: The list was created just for the sake of having such a list, The list is of interest to a very limited number of people, The list is a violation of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", The underlying concept is non-notable, The list is unencyclopaedic. Suriel1981 10:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no use in an encyclopedia; of interest to very few people --Austinsimcox 14:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List is finite, and it helps to keep related lists mutually exclusive and exhaustive. --Arcadian 16:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:LC is an essay, so meeting it is useless. It has a clear and finite definition, for which the criteria is claimed in the title even, and "only" housekeeping tasks mean the list is static and well balanced. I do think it could use some references, perhaps at least one for each school listed (or one source for all these) to support such claims. --MECU≈talk 17:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mecu — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, concept is very much notable and encyclopedic. List is feasibly maintainable. A Train ^{take the} 17:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, encyclopedic, etc. *Mishatx*-In\Out 19:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well defined list of which of the 300 Div 1 schools never had a varsity football program is not an indiscriminate list. It is not a matter of some editor's taste, opinion or judgement. Nothing the least bit "crufty" about it. It can be easily maintained. I guess my main question is why they give up the revenue of that cash cow sport? And are they more institutions of higher education than they would be if they had a varsity football team? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inkpaduta (talk • contribs) 19:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Suriel1981's comments. RobJ1981 00:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it'd be nice if there were some references. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is a useful and encyclopedic compilation of otherwise hard to find material. DGG 02:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's review the meaning of an indiscriminate list. To me, it means something like "list of movies that drag on and should have ended sooner". That type of list is subject to personal opinion; there is no set criteria for inclusion. In contrast, the criteria for inclusion in this list is crystal clear. Is it NPOV. It is so clear that the title really says it all - no introduction is even needed. It is a finite list, and maintaining the list is not even a big problem since not many Division I schools rush out and add football. This inforamation is useful and interesting. It is necesary information if we are to become the worlds foremost authority on college football. This is exactly the type of information we need on Wikipedia. Johntex\^talk 07:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, this is entirely to misunderstand how lists work here. We have a specific tool for handling this kind of information: the category. As it stands this article is simply a collection of information that could be handled more efficiently as a category. List articles only have value if they add some additional information, typically to enhance comprehension or ease comparison ( e.g. a list of people ordered by birth date, or a list of books sorted by genre ); this doesn't happen here. WMMartin 14:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment...I feel this info is valid...but...maybe it should be someplace else. Maybe as a category. Maybe the information can be shunted somewhere into here or here. I do think the info is valid, I'm just not sure this article is the right place for it. Oh, and source it. --UsaSatsui 11:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Create Category. Articles should not be simply lists of otherwise unorganised information. Haven't you people heard of categories ? WMMartin 14:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've heard of categories. For this particular grouping of colleges and universities, either method of presenting the information would work, and I can't see any reason to prefer one over the other. It's here now as a list, so keep it. JamesMLane t c 06:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let me help your vision out then, Commissar Lane ;-) This is far preferable to a category. This list is of some interest as a collection. However, it's not a defining characteristic of these colleges. Categories take up real estate on the page. Too many minor categories clutter and obscure the major ones. There's no need to have that footprint for a very minor attribute. Derex 06:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually, that point occurred even to my aged eyes. As against that, the category tag does serve the purpose of alerting the reader of the Fairleigh Dickinson University article that s/he can readily see which other schools are in this select group. The list wouldn't do that unless it were to be given real estate in each school's "See also" section. Nevertheless, because I agree with you that this isn't a defining characteristic, the category's gain in facilitating its pursuit isn't of great value. So, on further review, the original call stands. JamesMLane t c 06:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a category for this would almost certainly be deleted at WP:CFD; "not" categories, of which this would be one, are not done. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:17, 5 March 2007 (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.