Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual U.S. college mascots

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Freakofnurture (talk | contribs) at 10:36, 16 November 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

List of unusual U.S. college mascots

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP.

What constitutes a "normal" college mascot? And if saying something is "unusual" is objective, why not have articles listing "unusual" political leaders or "unusual" aquatic animals? Sarge Baldy 23:17, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Inherently POV, if interesting. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting list. Nomination also raises interesting questions. Kappa 23:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS This list is highly educational, now I know that a geoduck is not a kind of pokemon. Kappa 23:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kappa, thank you. I haven't laughed so hard all day (I voted below). ~~~~ 08:42, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • What sort of questions? I just find it inherently POV. If you want to understand my own personal take on the issue, it's that schools having a college mascot at all is pretty ridiculous in itself. Sarge Baldy 00:22, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete jayhawks, commodores, yellow jackets, are on here? for this list to continue, there would be an extended debate and possibly edit war over every single new submission. Sensation002 23:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--educational, and could be very useful, but I think this can't be NPOV. Maybe with outside sourcing, if renamed to List of college mascots thought to be unusual, but no need for it. Either delete or rename and add sources. Meelar (talk) 00:05, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Meelar, what kind of sources? Sources to verify that Foo University's mascot is actually "Foo Bear"? This info should be available at www.foo.edu which would presumably be linked from the main Foo U. article (2 clicks total). If you linking to a external source for each mascot confirming that said mascot is "widely considered unusual", I agree that it would make the article more interesting to some readers (good luck finding such sources), but it should not be a requirement for inclusion. ~~~~ 09:02, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Unless we have sources proclaiming each mascot unusual, we would be inserting our own POV, rather than documenting facts. Meelar (talk) 13:20, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to List of college mascots widely considered unusual or something to that effect. It's POV for the article to state that a mascot is unusual, but not that it's considered unusual, with a source. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 01:04, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "Unusual" is POV. For example, this person listed the Florida State Seminoles as "unusual". I disagree, how could an Indian tribe be unusual? Stancel 01:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's really two lists, by the way, one of team nicknames and one of mascots. I find both to be useful and interesting. -- Decumanus 01:18, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
  • Delete. My reasoning is that what I define as "unusual" could be different than yours or others. That will be constant edit war by many folks. Also, not many mascots are noteworthy enough to warrent their own articles. Then, those mascots who do have articles, should be placed at Category:College Mascots. Zscout370 (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Who gets to define "unusual?" Seems like nothing but a POV edit-war sink. --FCYTravis 01:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the fried okra is not even on here! what a sham! Sensation002 01:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment... it looks like there's going to be so many "unusual" college team names that the purpose of the article is defeated because the "unusual" has become commonplace. --FCYTravis 01:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a dumb list, but lots of Wikipedia users seem to love dumb lists. It does need to drop "unusual" from the title -- are any college mascots not unusual? ---Isaac R 02:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the word unusual is my only complaint with the article, so I'm on board with this change. Sarge Baldy 02:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename it list of U.S. college mascots and expand it to include those that are missing. - SimonP 02:33, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per SimonP or as a list of unique U.S. college mascots including only those mascots that are used by no more than one school. -- Jonel 02:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SimonP. Samaritan 04:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rah Rah Rah. Klonimus 06:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV list. Megan1967 07:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as per Jonel or SimonP (no real preference for either of them). Mgm|(talk) 07:54, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think "unusual" is necessarily derogatory. Some voters here act as if it was titled List of incredibly stupid U.S. college mascots or something. I would interpret "unusual", in this context, to mean "not widely used". Perhaps "unique" would be better though, I agree. However, the "widely considered unusual" proposal seems a bit verbose. ~~~~ 08:42, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • "Unique" would force us to purge a name from the list anytime a second example of it ("Turtle Beach Community College Terrapins") is found. Barno 13:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying the word is any way derogatory, I just don't see how it can be neutral when everyone has a different interpretation of its meaning. Sarge Baldy 17:02, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per SimonP, posssibly convert to table? --the wub (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tablifying sounds like an excellent idea. Radiant_* 11:33, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but define "unusual" (just as List of names in English with non-intuitive pronunciations had to define "non-intuitive"). --Angr/comhrá 10:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as above 66.94.94.154 12:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hmmmmm, now who does this nominator remind me of... —RaD Man (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per SimonP.
  • Keep. ✏ OvenFresh² 19:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Isaac R and SimonP, just to officialize my change of opinion. Sarge Baldy 20:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with above. Oliver Keenan 20:58, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename per SimonP and expand so it's all inclusive rather than focusing on supposed "unusualness." Postdlf 23:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and expand per SimonP's suggestion K1Bond007 00:43, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If you look at the broad spectrum of secondary, post-secondary and professional sports mascots, certain types of names are very common and fit into a an expected pattern, while others do not. "Usual" should be defined as "Commonly-known animal; well-known occupation, rank or social station; or well-known historical tribe or people admired for military prowess; well-known legendary, mythical or faith-based creature or personage" "Unusual" should be defined as not conforming to established patterns. Viz.:
  • Bears, Lions, Panthers, Stallions -- commonly known or expected animal mascots. Mastadons (my current university) or Koalas (my elementary school) -- less so.
  • Generals, Pirates (my middle school), Cadets, Knights, Lancers, Cavaliers -- all very common & expected. "Poets" or "Scientists" probably wouldn't be. Working-class occupations like "Boilermakers" and "Packers" are rare. Commodores pops up as Vanderbilt's mascot, but most schools seem to prefer the land/air forces term "General."
  • Spartans, Trojans, Vikings, Redskins (again, sometiems considered offensive, but very common), Indians, Pioneers, Minutemen, Patriots, Romans. For some reason, some hyper-militaristic or marauding peoples (Spartans and Vikings) are very attractive and commonly employed as mascots, whereas others (Cossacks and Huns) are not. For American Indians, general epithets (Redskins, Indians) seem to be common, while specific tribal names (Seminoles, Ilini) are considered unusual. "Hoosiers" (my old university), "Jayhawks" and "Buckeyes" are also considered unique. Most states don't even have a nickname for their residents, let alone employ the nickname as a school mascot. The Irish ) have lent their name to some American school teams (Notre Dame and my mother's now-defunct high school, but nobody calls their team "The Germans" or "The English." "Saxons" is indeed a rare name.
  • Griffins, Angels, Saints (my high school and several colleges), Dragons -- all very common. Sphynxes, Jaberwockies, Snipes -- exist in literature or legend but not as team mascots.

--Jpbrenna 02:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_unusual_U.S._college_mascots&oldid=28494451"