Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornelliana

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. ST47Talk 21:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cornelliana

Cornelliana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

The article's interesting, but basically just non-notable, unencyclopedic fancruft for Cornell (can there be fancruft for a University?) Some of this info probably has a place in the Cornell article, but much of it is ridiculously widespread and of no real interest--chalkings, traying: what university doesn't do this? Also, a lot of it is just random student gossip/legends that have no place in an encyclopedia. Velvet elvis81 07:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete This is going to open a can of worms. I think it might be valid to have a culture page which this basically is. However I don't see how this meets notibility guidelines. This is of interest to no one except people who go there and it is mainly neoligisms and weird cruft. Its not really definable or verifiable since sources are mainly itself.--Dacium 07:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, plenty of the subsection have links to main articles about what the subsection is about. This article is basically a very convenient way of collecting all the cultural etc... aspects of Cornell together. Very handy. Mathmo ^Talk 08:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, keeps all cultural information about Cornell in one place. Many of the items have subpages or citations. --Xtreambar 12:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Could use some updating/organization, but it is certainly of interest to many people.2afterblue 15:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, I may have a bias here, but this article containts well-referenced facts and history about Cornell, its alumni and its unique culture, and it belongs in the encyclopedia. This information belongs in either its own article, or the Cornell article. Deleting this article will expand the Cornell main article with this informattion to a beyond cumbersome size; this article should be kept for that reason alone. Cornell Rockey 15:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Wouldn't this be better titled as something like "Cornell University Traditions"? People researching Cornell University might be interested, and would be more inclined to look at the article if it had a more understandable title. Citicat 03:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not only is the title of the article inappropriate for the content, much of the article consists of Original Research (although some of it is sourced). I'm not convinced that an article on cultural aspects of a particular university are sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia and, if it is decided that this is the case, then we will need to be willing to accept similar articles for all universities. Indeed, if this is kept I may develop articles on cultural aspects of my alma mater, Millikin Univeristy, as well as my grad school. Overall this seems just a bit too trivial... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Way (talk • contribs) 06:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
• Comment I've added a bunch of citations in response to the allegation of "original research". I hope these clarify a few things. --Xtreambar 15:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The new citations help, though some sections still need them (or should be removed). Examples are the sections on traying and on Campbells Soup. I'm still not fully convinced that we should have articles on cultural aspects of individual universities, but I'm not strongly opposed either. Anyone else have any thoughts on the precedent that this would set? --The Way 21:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep If there are people that find the information on this page useful and personally beneficial, then I say we definitely keep it. As one of those people, I know that we do exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.253.153.17 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 January 2007.
• Strong Keep University traditions are notable and generally well-referenced. Cornell is no exception. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• I'm changing my opinion from delete to Neutral. The article needs better sourcing, but the sources that do exist are notable enough. I am not 'voting' either way, however, because I remain unconvinced that the cultural traditions of any given university are notable enough for inclusion on the Wikipedia. It would be nice to see a guideline/policy developed specifically for universities about what aspects of a university are acceptable for articles. Overall, I still sort of agree Dacium's claim that "This is of interest to no one except people who go there and it is mainly neoligisms and weird cruft." --The Way 23:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Some parts of this article are non-notable or undocumented, and have no place here. Other parts ( e.g. Dragon Day ) are notable and already covered. In any case, the correct place to put links to the notable items is in the main Cornell University article. If we accept Cornelliana we will have to add Oxoniana, Cantabriana, Yaliana, Harvania immediately. And then we'll have to add Mancastriana, Cantuarian, Sorbonniana, MITiana. And in due course we'll have Podunkiana and HicksvilleAlabamiana. And that's just the universities, because we'll have to add Trekiana ( already an established fan term ), Pokemoniana and GalaxyQuestiana ( or should that be Questorianiana ? ). And so on. Notable lore about an existing subject should either go in the appropriate existing article, or should be notable enough to stand in an article on its own, linked to from the main article. ( My suspicion is that this is ultimately a confusion of variable typing. ) WMMartin 15:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This deletion debate is really a debate about how we file things at least as much as it is about the content of the article. I suggest that in closing this debate the two aspects are treated separately. WMMartin 15:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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.