Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Social Equity Institute

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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Social Equity Institute[edit]

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

Institute within a university. Such institutes are almost never considered notable here, unless they are world famous. There is no indication that this one is. Every reference is from their own web page, and that's where this material belongs. Possibly this is best considered a G11 speedy DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable subject and entirely self-cited WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. full of primary sources. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree the current article is completely based on primary sources, contrary to policy. However, I think there is just sufficient reliable secondary sources as per this for WP:NEXIST to apply. Aoziwe (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Bernadette McSherry or University of Melbourne. There is no reason why this can't be included somewhere else. Regards So Why 09:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no need to redirect or merge IMO, as DGG says, all of its content is just sourced to its own website, conveying no independent notability. DrStrauss talk 13:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question for DrStrauss, DGG, K.e.coffman, LibStar. So there is not sufficient secondary sources here to satisfy WP:NEXIST ? Aoziwe (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mention the GNG requirement for sourcing in my nomination for deletion. There are many other reasons for deletion, and the ones I suggested are based on the principle, also in WP:GNG, that passing the GNG does not guarantee an article. Among the reasons why there might not be an article is that the material is best covered in a more comprehensive article. We generally do follow that rule, and the practice at WP for the last 10+ years I have been here, is that we do not usually make articles for individual research institutes within universities unless they are famous. One of the reasons for this is that we generally do not have sources which provide material which is not also on their own web sites, and anyone interested in the institute knows perfectly well how to find it.

But the most important reason, as I said, is that the article was entirely promotional. It had no sources except from the school itself, all subpages of its own web site; the fact that others exist but that they did not use them indicates their purpose: it was to reprint a summary of their website on Wikipedia. That is advertising. Articles that are entirely advertising should be deleted, unless they are important enough for someone to rescue. The only way we can tell in a discussion if someone will rescue them is if they are improved during the discussion. In the 12 days this article has been at AfD nobody has improved it. The conclusion of these syllogisms is thus that the article should not remain in Wikipedia. Nor should it remain in Draft. It might get improved there, but it is pure advertising, and we do not do that in draft space either (and we unfortunately know that relatively few articles do get improved there). So I challenge anyone who thinks there are sources for a NPOV article: write one. (I've followed my own rule, and improved many articles in this manner when they are in my field and sufficiently important. When I first came here I thought I could do it very often, but if I do it properly rather than minimally I only have time for one or two a week.) DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG. I can see your point, but what it really means is that something is effectively only notable at AfD if it meets GNG and someone has the time and interest at the time of AfD to fix it and is aware of it at the time. This might leave a lot of notable topics in severe danger just because an interested editor is not around and/or engaged at the time. Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was at that point in my comment talking only about articles characterized by thoroughgoing promotionalism. There is no point leaving in the encyclopedia articles that are essentially advocacy or advertising in the hope they will be rewritten. Sometimes there are other techniques, such as stubbification, but then someone needs to watch that the material not be restored. I've never used this argument for notability, where I agree with you that the probability of sources can often be sufficient reason to keep. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary sources do not help to show notability, DGG's argument is persuasive. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:14, 27 July 2017 (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.