Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Junior Common Rooms

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 of the debate was delete moink 01:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Junior Common Rooms

Disputed Prod. As a contested deletion it should come here. Please see the talk page (Talk:List of Junior Common Rooms) for the removing editors resons for doing so. The Prod was {{prod|Wikipedia is not a collection of external links}} Blue520 13:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The purpose of the article is to list the JCRs, which is a useful companion piece to the Junior Common Room article. The external links are a secondary matter, in the absense of wikipedia articles about each JCR or groups of JCRs it seems useful to link to their own websites. Jamse 13:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopædic in scope and content, WP is not a mirror or a repository of links - point one specifically. (aeropagitica) 13:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it may be useful to separate the links issue from the list itself. The justifications for deleting the list seems to be based entirely on the fact that it has links associated. If you don't like the links, propose removing them - don't throw the baby out with the bath water! Jamse 13:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. It seems like there's only bathwater here. If you remove the external links, then you just have a list of schools with JCRs, which will qualify for deletion as listcruft. If you create and link Wikipedia articles for each individual school's JCR, those articles will qualify for deletion as non-notable organizations. - Rynne 15:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOT. A list of external links is not encyclopaedic. A list of Junior Common Rooms is not, either; there are ~~thousands~~ hundreds of them. If too many external links are on an article, the solution is to cull them, not to spooge them off into a sub-'article'. Proto||type 14:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic (or encyclopædic for our UK friends). If basically every British university has a JCR, then this ends up being a list of universities. Absolutely pointless. Fan1967 14:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - not every university has a JCR system - I'd guess less than 10% do. Jamse 15:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a random list. Ned Wilbury 15:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT, per (aeropagitica) and others. - Rynne 15:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original PRODder (okay, that was me), Rynne's comment and others. FreplySpang (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencylopedic, unnecessary list. Concur with Fan1967 MLA 16:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as list of weblinks, with no attempt at encylcopaedic comment with them (and this from someone who, a while ago, edited the page!). Batmanand | Talk 16:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete unencyclopedic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Reyk 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- What the person above me said. 204.69.40.7 21:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Although i've edited the page in the past, it's probably not necessary. Con Dem^Talk 03:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not encyclopaedic, and serves absolutely no purpose here. --Hahaandy1 12:31, 11 March 2006 (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.