Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Cornell University

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. Or should that be "Jeep"? Big Dom 11:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Cornell University[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Information in article is duplicate of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, just without pictures. Even the lead is generic to the Nobel Prize and has little to do with Cornell. —Eustress ^talk 13:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The photos could be added to the names already on the other list. Add them as a link after the name so the table structure remains the same. The article in question has some good qualities that could be added to the Cornell section. Golgofrinchian (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article seems to me to be part of a worthwhile trend in the expansion of Wikipedia -- an innovation that should be encouraged, not quashed. It is one of at least twelve articles about the Nobel laureates affiliated with a specific university. The individual articles include far more information (not just photos, but information content) than List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, and the individual articles are more convenient for linking from the individual university articles. Also, unlike List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, this article doesn't violate accessibility standards by requiring the reader to be able to see colors in order to tell what categories the awards are in. ~~However, I confess that I haven't been able to figure out how this list is sorted -- the laureates seem to be in random order.~~ --Orlady (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I notice that four other lists of Nobel laureates by university, all similar to this one, are Featured lists. --Orlady (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw some of the FLs (e.g., List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University) and was surprised -- looks like content forking to me -- and not much additional information provided that isn't either provided in List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation or the individual university alumni lists. I also don't think linking to laureates for individual universities is an issue (e.g., List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation#Cornell_University). —Eustress ^talk 19:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we have different perceptions of what constitutes "information." In addition to pictures, these university-specific lists include the dates of the Nobel prizes (the general list does not), describe the nature of the person's affiliation with the university and give the dates of affiliation (the general list just classifies them as "graduate" or "academic staff," and indicates whether they were on the staff before or after the Nobel prize), and tell what contribution(s) were honored by the award (the general list does not contain this information). I call all these elements "information." Additionally, these specific university lists use text to indicate the award category (instead of color-coding, which is not accessible to many people with visual limitations) and the lists are sortable tables. --Orlady (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely room for improvement for List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, but I think in the end it'll be easier to maintain one centralized list. Either way, there seems to be a lot of redundant information between the various lists. —Eustress ^talk 21:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble seeing why the List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation would be considered the only appropriate place for this content. It's a huge page (113k or so, the last I looked) in spite of having only outline-level content, and a mega-page like that one is not a particularly useful information resource for a user whose main interest is in the famous people associated with a particular university. If anything, I see that page as a statistical comparison page (although it is not set up as such) and an outline-level list that can be used to direct readers to more specific articles, including articles like List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Cornell University. I know that one person's summary-style article split can be another person's content fork, but I fail to see how an article on Cornell's Nobel laureates could be an inappropriate content fork. --Orlady (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeep per Orlady — it appears that the nominator is objecting to this list because of its scope. I don't see any difference between the qualitative value of this list and the Princeton list, so both should stay or both should go, and (barring copyright problems) I can't imagine a good reason to get rid of a featured list. In other words: since consensus has determined that the Princeton list is a good thing to have, we should keep this list. WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply here: it depends on the mere existence (or nonexistence) of something, while here we're talking about some of Wikipedia's most heavily reviwed content: basing an argument on something that passes the featured criteria is significantly different from basing an article on something that might fail dozens of guidelines. Nyttend (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both lists are ok, they show different information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list contains useful information not present the primary article, which if incorporated there would probably cause it to be oversized. I am puzzled (?) that none of the other articles containing specific lists of Nobel recipients affiliated with other universities have been nominated for deletion. bonze blayk (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable intersection. These pages are best keep separate, with the combination page a summary. As alsmost all such people have multiple affiliations, it will be useful to have separate lists, and usefulness is one of the criteria for lists. This is basic useful encyclopedic information in an appropriate place for it. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 24 March 2011 (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.