Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrated Science, Business and Technology

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was delete. Petros471 16:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Science, Business and Technology[edit]

Original reason for speedy deletion: "undergraduate program that exists at one university is not notable" by Howardjp (talk · contribs). However, a college program isn't like those "non-notable group" created by college students, so it doesn't qualify for CSD. Listing of AFD, no vote. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue this interdisciplinary program is notable enough to keep and grow its article in Wikipedia, relative to the growing importance of similar interdisciplinary programs at other universities. Keep. 71.162.141.213 02:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (zuzu, still trying to recover my L/P)[reply]

  • Delete; I've yet to see anything to justify its inclusion. -James Howard (talk/web) 03:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable and unencyclopedic.--Peta 06:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep describing University programs is an important function for an encyclopedia, just because they are small doesn't mean they aren't exactly what someone is looking for and there is no reason to make that search more difficult. --Melanarchy 06:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Somebody who is looking for a university program should be consulting their school careers advisor, not looking in an encyclopdedia. Wikipedia is not intended to be a replacement for the entire Internet, it is intended to be a replacement for proprietary encyclopedias like Britannica and Encarta. Those do not contain details of degree programs. Neither should this. — Haeleth Talk
  • Delete - University programs are not Wikipedia material. Wikipedia discusses things like Applied mathematics as a field of science, not as a hundred different university programs. - Andre Engels 08:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This distinction seems far from clearly delineated. Surely some academic institutions pursue particular aspects or niches within a given field. The University of Chicago has done this on a number of occasions; for example, hosting a school/conclave of free market economists during a period of popular socialism in the United States. At the same time, Wikipedia surely includes articles about academies at large; at what fineness of granularity does this articulation of academic organizations become unencyclopedic regardless of the content within a given article? 71.162.141.213 08:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (zuzu)[reply]
  • Delete - an article on the Uni is wikipedia material but specific course information is for the insitutions website. Would probably also fail WP:RS as the only source would be the subject of the article - Peripitus (Talk) 12:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, but the article in question doesn't include course material, but rather, a description of the material presented. 71.162.141.213 12:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the increasing popularity of interdisciplinary programs is notable, individual examples of such programs are not. — Haeleth Talk 16:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into La Salle University, let the normal editors of that article decide if this is worth keeping there. Otherwise, delete per nom. -- ReyBrujo 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete in favor of La Salle University. (A redirect would be questionable, so we might need to do something fancy to implement a merge.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • as per the following "Keep" vote. It's clearly a program at la Salle University, not replicated elsewhere. Whether that's because it's trademarked by the University or because other universities aren't interested is no business of Wikipedia -- it's still a non-notable neologism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I continue to contest this as a conflation between the semiotics of a label and and the content identified by that label. As a generalist, rather than specialist discipline, the same or extremely similar bodies of content may be studied but with different labels for that same content (just as different natural languages may have different words for the same object or object type). Keeping an article such as this fascilitates a hyperlinked encyclopedic overview of the various Venn diagrams mapping of the more generalized and amorphous disciplines of interdisciplinary and cybernetics studies. To quote Sartre, "Existence precedes essence." 71.162.141.213 00:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I've figured out a way to keep everyone happy, and still maintain an encyclopedia.
          1. Rename to Integrated Science, Business and Technology (la Salle University)
          2. Kill the resulting redirect.
          3. Merge into Integrated learning
        • I'm afraid this wouldn't happen, so unless someone WP:Boldly does it, my vote is still Delete — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Given an uncertain future, we cannot tell without providing editors now and in the future with the opportunity. Again, from a Valid content is deleted and Obscure content isn't harmful standpoint, it seems better to allow the possibility of be bold now and in the future, than to delete the article and never know (or destroy) what might have been. 71.162.141.213 18:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this were something common, like applied mathematics, there would be no need for this page. However this page does an excellent job of describing what this program is about and how to reproduce it. It talks about the integration of the fields, which is unusual. The fact is, there are few things similar to this. Perhaps combining it with a page on cybernetics, but, that would be a rather weird place to store it. It merits it's own page simply because it is unique, there is no cmparable field of study to reference it from, and it provides a how to for students and educators alike to learn more about such programs, hopefully leading to them building one themselves. Just lumping it within La Salle Uni seems like a waste of potential, not to mention this is a small noteworthy program that would get lost within the rest of the college. Goodship11 20:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The world and society is in constant demand for a constant catch up in the fields of science and technology. This is a ground breaking major and just because it does not fit a text book definition of a major, should not be hindered by narrowmindedness. There would be no difference for having a major such as this or double, or even triple majoring, in a science, business, and technicology separately. Although the specific name of Integrated Science, Business, Technology is not named at other universities, does not necessarily mean that similar programs do not exist. If programs and studies such as this were not constantly explored and taught, progression in these fields might not be to today's growing standards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.206.185 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep I still do not see any good reason to delete it. If it helps people stay informed about this program, then its useful. Goodship11 makes a good point that it could give insight into other programs like it, as our world is changing fast and these new amalgamation majors pop up to reflect learned over-laps between fields of study. zibitt x. shanstner 19:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Only edit from new user. Fan1967 01:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. If possible merge into the main university page. Frankchn 02:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficiently Notable / Important[edit]

One primary argument which has surfaced is whether an article on ISBT studies satisfies Wikipedia:Importance vis-a-vis Wikipedia:Notability. Perhaps the AfD template should then be exchanged for Template:Importance? 71.162.141.213 01:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability/Proposal#Disputed notability, In the case of such articles being listed for deletion, such a listing occurs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and Wikipedia editors should outline their reasons for believing the article's given topic to be of no encyclopaedic quality, namely that no independent sources of a reliable nature have been referenced. This will allow a balanced discussion to ensue on the topic's given value, and will determine its worth to Wikipedia The burden of proof is on those arguing for "non-notable" as reason for deletion. 71.162.141.213 03:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article in question seems to satisfy Wikipedia:Importance#Importance criteria. 71.162.141.213 01:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we can narrow down the nature of what makes this article "not-notable" (or not) by the prompts provided at Wikipedia:Notability#Notability and deletion? 71.162.141.213 01:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-notable topics do not attract editors The ISBT article shares many of the same editors with the La Salle University article. 71.162.141.213 02:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-notable topics clutter categories The ISBT article only uses three categories, one of which is for La Salle University. 71.162.141.213 02:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Valid content is deleted and Obscure content isn't harmful seem to be applicable assertions -- and the primary counter-argument -- in this case. (Again, Wikipedia is not paper.) 71.162.141.213 02:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable and not well written. Vote clarified below. Cedars 09:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "not well written" better deserves a Wikipedia:Cleanup than a deletion. 71.162.141.213 18:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notice my vote has attracted a bit of attention, I really don't want to discourage anyone from contributing to Wikipedia and I appreciate this process can be a little intimidating. My vote above should really just be viewed as saying that I believe this article does not fit with the focus of Wikipedia and may be better served by another wiki. Wikipedia recieves 100's of new articles everyday, many of which need quick review in terms of whether they stay or go. This can be why deletion votes are often very terse and, sometimes, brash in their explanation. If the ISBT degree is a significant degree at La Salle University then please feel free to add it to the La Salle University article. I just don't feel this article accords with the focus of the Wikipedia project. This is because, although Wikipedia certainly covers university programmes that are not fields in their own right such as pre-med, this article seems to focus on the programme at a specific university and Wikipedia tends not to contain articles on programmes from specific universities. For example, there is no Pre-med (Harvard) article on Wikipedia. If the programme was more widespread and written about in this context then the article may be appropriate for Wikipedia. Cedars 11:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I share your concern for dedicating pages for individual programs. Integrative learning programs like ISBT are sprouting in droves and we view our program as one of the early leaders in an emergent field of study, rather than yet another department at yet another university whose curriculum follows the dictates of the professional organizations that govern it. I am very keen on the idea of shifting our efforts to the Integrative learning article for an explanation of this nascent field. We are content with using our own Uni's servers to advertise and manage our program, but we are eager to share our enthusiasm for this new field, so that as you have stated, programs such as this are more widespread and written about. Best regards, --qswitch426 13:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the creator of the ISBT article, I appreciate the current debate. I glean there is a bimodal discussion pertaining to the significance of Integrative learning and the appropriateness of an article on Wikipedia for a specific undergraduate program of study that embraces it. Perhaps it is too early to recognize this area of study as a legitimate academic subject. I find it ironic that a course of study founded firmly on the collaborative efforts of specialists is not considered notable in the Wikipedia arena. Perhaps collaboration has reached such a heightened level of pervasiveness as to be commonplace and non-notable. If that is the case, then a major goal of the ISBT program has been achieved. The user page of the previous commenter, Cedars, states this user is studying for a Bachelor of Science and a Bachelor of Engineering with majors in electrical engineering, computer science and applied mathematics and specialized interest in commerce, economics, psychology and law. This user is exactly the archetype student our program wishes to serve. As for the article not providing enough content, the ISBT program hosts is own MediaWiki-based wiki on internal program servers. Our IT department is migrating the ISBTwiki to external servers over the summer school break. The ISBTwiki currently contains over 1,500 pages in the database, with over 100 legitimate content pages. Perhaps an interwiki map to the ISBTwiki from the main Uni page would assuage the sensitivity to limited space on the Wikipedia. --qswitch426 11:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Integrated_Science,_Business_and_Technology&oldid=1137931616"