Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Phillips Exeter Academy alumni

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 16:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a necessary page; duplicates the content of Category:Phillips Exeter Academy alumni. A category is a much less likely vandal target, as this article has been hit often and has several questionable names. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, getting to large to maintain, Category:Phillips Exeter Academy alumni is sufficient. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, i agree, catagory is sufficient.Adreamtonight (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The risk of vandalism is not an excuse to delete an article. WP:SOFIXIT: If there are questionable entries, check them, {{Fact }} tag them, or fix them. Edit history says other editors are addressing these problems. The list contains and organizes useful information in a way a category cannot, esp. when they graduated and why they are important. • Gene93k (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Gene93k. The list is superior to the category. Zagalejo^^^ 07:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, provides organization that a category cannot. A vandalism problem is reason for watchlisting or blocking, not deletion. Note in particular that all school-related articles are vandalism magnets. --Dhartung | Talk 08:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A useful list that's as valid as any list of University alumni. Not all high schools would merit such a list, but considering the relative prestige of Exeter and the number of notable alumni, I'd say the article's warranted. SaveThePoint (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As any other notable alumni list. Mbisanz (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lists do not compete with categories; each has its place, and this list as constructed organizes information in a manner that a category never could. Even if this list did nor merit a standalone article, the logical choice would have been a merge back into the parent Exeter article, not a delete. As to being a vandalism target, that would be a great reason to delete the George W. Bush article, a far more frequent target of vandals, and a deletion that might find broader support. A more productive solution than deletion might be greater vigilance, at least until we find some way to undo the damage caused by our "anyone can edit" policy. Alansohn (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This page is not merely a duplicate of the category; the page has about twice as many entries as the category, and the chronological arrangement is useful. I agree that vandalism is a problem, but protecting the page would have prevented the issues I dealt with. —FlashSheridan (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lists of school alumni provide a greater navigable value than categories, and risk of occasional vandalism is not a good reason for deletion. --Canley (talk) 23:33, 28 December 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.