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 merge but merge/delete is simply not a valid course of action, we need to preserve the article history. An AfD is not needed to do a merge anyway, it could have just been merged/redirected without the AfD since there seems to be a strong consensus. W.marsh 19:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of alumni of Aquinas College, Perth[edit]

List of alumni of Aquinas College, Perth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

There's not so many here that they cannot be included in the main article. Having a separate list article also sets a bad precedent for other schools. On its own, its hardly encyclopaedic. —Moondyne 06:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and delete as nominator. —Moondyne 06:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete per nom. Crufty. MER-C 06:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- —Moondyne 08:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete for sure. --Ali K 08:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with college page --John Krugger 11:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, I agree. Unfortunately, all of Aquinas College's daughter articles are essentially cruft - note the articles about the Houses, grounds, buildings, and sport at the school. A well-meaning editor is sort of trying to turn a corner of Wikipedia into an online student handbook for the school.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this is a very fair comment. I'd just like to note that the editor in question is certainly hard-working, has excellent attention to detail, and is trying hard to do a good job. It's always difficult to distinguish the relative importance of a subject when you're very close to it; I am confident he will take this tidying-up effort in good faith. WMMartin 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's far too long to merge into the school article, which would become completely unbalanced. (There are those who ask for such things to be removed from school articles and others who ask for them to be moved back.) It contains various notable persons + comprehensive refs - what's wrong with it? roundhouse 16:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully agree, the vast majority of people on this list are not notable, and only a handful have wikipedia articles. The ones who don't shouldn't. The truly notable people who are supported by references can be included on the school's page.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are schools with separate lists, eg Eton College and Harrow School, and others with vast internal lists (eg Marlborough College). On further reflection and investigation I agree with Dmz5 in this case; the blue linked ones should be merged into the article and the rest discarded or articles created for them (if justified). roundhouse 21:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main article and all its subsidiary articles seem to strive to give the impression that this school is in the same league as Eton and Harrow, which is debatable, but an encyclopedia is not the place to advance the position...-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, when I say Merge in an RfA discussion context I don't necessarily mean merge every detail in the source article. Rather, the merge should typically entail some editing which culls out information which is unreasonable to include in the target. The target must be balanced as where lots of detail is OK in a child article, that same level of detail would be overkill in the parent. How much detail? Well that's part of the ebb and flow of normal Wikipedia article editing. —Moondyne 23:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is too big to merge back into main, and would just look plain stupid. Smbarnzy 08:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Moondyne. Eton and Harrow get separate lists because they're vastly notable schools with centuries of alumni. This is not the case here. WMMartin 14:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Peta 02:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per DMZ5. This debate should not be used as precedent to delete all and every school alumni list, though. JROBBO 23:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per JROBBO and DMZ5 DanielT5 13:58, 9 February 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.