Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NIT 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 no consensus. Any decision to convert this into a category or a placeholder et al can be undertaken within the talk page of the list. At this point, there is no consensus to delete. Wifione ^Message 17:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of NIT alumni

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

Redundant to the lists existing for each of the institutes and requires double the maintenance. Maybe at the time of creation when there were few alumni in each NIT this had a point, but now that there are so many of them this ceased to make sense. Muhandes (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems like a valid redirect/search term. Why not make this a placeholder sort of article. which links to the individual alumni articles?--Sodabottle (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems with this, which I believe can be addressed. First, there are no individual alumni articles, there are sections of alumni listings in the NITs' articles. If this seems suitable, I don't think there will be much harm in making it a list of links to sections. Alternatively, it can be a list of lists, where each article links to the relevant section. Second, the new NITs don't have alumni yet as they just started operating. That means quite a lot of red links in that list. Not a biggie either. Bottom line, I wouldn't mind. --Muhandes (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the Sodabottle that seems like reasonable thing to do, the red links shouldn't be an issue just place a note next to them saying the schools just starting operation. The Terminator p t c 12:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about keeping the article, and breaking down alumni by individual institution. Then link the Notable alumni sections of each article to the appropriate section of the master list? Monty ₈₄₅ 22:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how will that prevent redundancy? We've been through this exact thing with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian Institutes of Technology alumni. There are lists in each institute's article. What you are suggesting is to copyright those lists from the articles, which is redundant and requires double the maintenance. --Muhandes (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was unclear, what I mean was that the sections in each article would be replaced with a linking to the relevant section. The list would then only be maintained in the one place. It is usually used when the list of people is too large and starts to overwhelm the article, so it is not a standard approach to use in a case like this, but it may be workable here. Monty845 17:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say "usually used", but I can't say I am familiar with this way of doing things, can you give some examples? I believe that when the list of people is too large and starts to overwhelm the article, the thing to do is to create an article "List of alumni of X" (random examples, List of alumni of Villanova University, List of alumni of the University of Chile and many more) and link to that, not to a list which combines many other institutes. What's the benefit of doing that? --Muhandes (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply that a joint list of alumni (people associated with a place) was a common occurrence, only that splitting out the list from an individual article into an individual list was normal. Creating a join list that way may be a novel approach. But it could be useful to have a list of the combined graduates of the associated institutions, and the joint list with the see also links would be a way to achieve that without duplication. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is possible, but what's the benefit of using a form never used in any other list? Resolving duplication would be achieved just as easy in the standard way, and we can keep the original per Sodabottle proposal. --Muhandes (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a category Lists like this rarely seem to get maintained. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:24, 7 September 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.