Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oregon State University College of Liberal Arts

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 was keep‎. The amount of bad faith and argument by assertion is deeply disappointing and we are back into schoolnotability territory where it's impossible to make a policy based consensus because one side isn't arguing from a policy position but have a clear super majority. Spartaz Humbug! 10:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon State University College of Liberal Arts

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Oregon State University College of Liberal Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to be independently notable (notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization) ElKevbo (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The Oregon State University College of Liberal Arts article was added to the Oregon State University main article several years ago, along with articles on the Colleges of Engineering, Business, and Science. The goal has been to provide articles for all of OSU's colleges over time, just as many other universities do on Wikipedia. Each of these articles has been growing with the additions from multiple writers - especially the Liberal Arts College article. Inside the article's talk page you will note that there have been no recent discussions about issues from anyone - although old and resolved issues still remain. Elkebvo placed, what I feel is a random and unnecessary, Request for Deletion (7/8/23) on this article due to the subject not being "notable". I, of course, couldn't disagree more and question how it is even possible to consider a major public university's college not "notable". There has been zero correspondence leading up to this notification and no history of abuse with this article. I am dumbfounded by the argument as a whole since hundreds of universities on Wikipedia have an article for their college of liberal arts, college of arts and letters and college of arts and sciences. Why is OSU's CLA article being singled out? Not a single sentence is duplicated on the parent article.

From the "Not Notable" Wikipedia page:

"avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics" Are these "really" indiscriminate topics?

  • Schools
  • History
  • Academics
  • Student awards
  • Budget cuts
  • Expansion
  • Notable alumni
  • Notable faculty

The whole "presumed" and "trivial" question is subjective, to say in the least. We could have the same debate over every single page on Wikipedia, which brings me back to why is this article being singled out with no precedential communication from Elkevbo or other Wikipedia editors. As I remember, all issues have been addressed up until this very random notification for this article. I am not the only writer for this article, but I am a regular contributor. Everything on this page is sourced and are well-known historical facts. If Wikipedia readers believed a source was not accurate, they would have provided a "Talk" comment over the last +2 years so it could be debated or addressed. I see no history of that.

One of the issues we all have when writing an article about a university college is finding secondary sources. Mostly, because mainstream news rarely provides in-depth historical information about individual colleges within universities. In addition, many of the NP archives are paywalled. Does that make individual colleges less "notable?" Of course not, it does however make it more difficult to find secondary sources. I will admit that ALL university college pages are universally low on secondary sources. In most cases, the secondary sources used in the majority of these articles was a rewrite from a college press release. Is that really bad or make it "not notable"? Again, no. College press releases are routinely used as reliable information by all outlets and should be considered a highly reliable source of information by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludviggy (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ludviggy Keep(talk)

A "keep" argument would probably be most convincing to other editors if you could provide - here or in the article - reliable sources that clearly and explicitly discuss this college in sufficient detail to establish that it's independently notable. Sources that are independent of the college would probably be more convincing to many editors. ElKevbo (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the sources don't discuss the subject of the article - that is what WP:N requires. ElKevbo (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would not merge most of the material back into the parent article; much of it is unnecessarily detailed.
My initial sense is that several of the other colleges meet WP:GNG as there are multiple, independent sources that explicitly discuss them. That's just not the case for this particular one (in my experience, colleges of art, science, or both typically don't have the same cohesion of mission and identity as other colleges that focus on a specific, cohesive discipline or set of closely related disciplines - that also means that many of them have not been the subject of focused inquiry and documentation hence they're often not independently notable). We should not expect all subunits of a notable organization, including many universities, to themselves be notable. ElKevbo (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other 3 colleges do not have articles that are really any better in my opinion, it would either have to be all or none. If only this article gets deleted then it might be unfair discrimination against liberal arts. However merging all of that content from the 4 articles back into the parent article would be unwieldy, so I would probably just leave them and try cleaning them up at this point. - Indefensible (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there are other articles that should also be nominated for deletion that they should be nominated, too. "Wikipedia editors have written a long article using sources that are about other, related subjects" is not a good reason to keep an article. It's unfortunate that volunteers spent time on an article that could or should be deleted but that isn't a reason to keep that article.
The notion of Wikipedia editors practicing "unfair discrimination against liberal arts" is silly. Other colleges tend to attract specific, focused attention in part because many programs outside of arts and sciences are programmatically accredited and that tends to attract media attention every _ years when accreditation is reviewed. Professional licensure rates - engineers, teachers, nurses, etc. - also tend to attract attention and generate focused media articles. Agricultural schools often have long histories tied to land grant acts, federal law, and state laws so they also tend to attract some focused attention (for example, at my current university, the "Master of the Grange" - the state's leading farmer - is an ex officio member of our board of trustees). ElKevbo (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should nominate the other colleges at OSU for deletion on the same grounds then in my opinion, I feel uncomfortable on principle voting to delete this when there would be a discrepancy in comparison with the other articles. Currently it seems like this article for the liberal arts has more coverage over the others, I do not see why it should be deleted and the others not. But frankly I would still just leave them, primary sources in some cases are valid and might be good enough. - Indefensible (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a reasonable split from the main article, even if not strictly required. If the split was truly done too early, propose a merge on the Oregon State University talk page so editors focused on that article can evaluate in-depth instead of in a rushed AFD. In other words, it would be disruptive for the quality of the main article for this AFD to result in a merge. There are no major NPOV violations here, and the vast majority is verifiable, so, with respect to the nom, "unnecessarily detailed" does not seem like a reason for deletion. —siroχo 23:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is it reasonable to split this information into a new article when only one source - a 3-page summary written for the subject itself - in the new article is actually about the subject? There doesn't seem to be nearly enough to meet WP:N or to write an article about the subject. That one editor has continued to expand the article by using references that are about the university or other subjects doesn't support the contention that the subject is notable. ElKevbo (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Okoslavia (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The arguments presented that the article is well-distanced from the main article or otherwise properly sourced or well-written is missing the point. The notability of the subject needs to be presented, and as it stands much of the sources don't demonstrate that. In fact, the majority of the sources in the article seem to be primary, or exclusively local and connected with the College of the Liberal Arts. GuardianH (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm seeing plenty of independent reliable sources cited in the article; I guess the question is whether coverage of e.g. the school of visual arts counts as coverage of the College of which it is a part. This is an issue on which the GNG is silent, and which can get into some weird metaphysical territory if one thinks about it too hard. But as a practical matter I don't really see why such coverage wouldn't count. Ultimately this is a "how should we break up this large blob of content" question rather than a "should we have any content on this at all" question. The notability guidelines can furnish some guidance there but following any set of rules too rigidly is a recipe for trouble. On the whole it seems to me that we are going to have a much more manageable set of articles if we use the college as the unit of coverage rather than having articles on any individual school, program or department that can clear the GNG (and that someone feels motivated to write) -- and much more manageable than trying to smoosh all coverage of the university into a single article. -- Visviva (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) explicitly addresses this: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable....This works the other way as well. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not 'inherit' notability due to their membership. A corporation may be notable, but its subsidiaries do not 'inherit' notability from being owned by the corporation." ElKevbo (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the language of INHERITORG pretty clearly doesn't contemplate this kind of situation, and was more about the abuse of corporate and product articles. But even if we're approaching this legalistically (which we really shouldn't), then we have to consider that WP:NSCHOOL expressly bypasses NORG: All universities, colleges and schools [...] must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both (my emphasis). INHERITORG is part of NORG and is not part of the GNG, so (as long as this meets the GNG) INHERITORG does not apply. -- Visviva (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG - there is only source that is substantively focused on this subject. (It's telling that (a) that one source is closely connected to the subject and (b) another editor has been working quite hard to improve this article and they haven't been able to find another source specifically focused on this subject.) ElKevbo (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The consensus seems to be leaning towards keep, however, the nomination is being fiercely defended by the nom and I would like to see more discussion on his points and about the keep consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a quick follow up nearly two weeks after this nomination was made: Ludviggy has been working quite hard to improve the article and it currently has 102 sources. However, all of those sources either (a) only mention this college in passing or (b) were written by people who work for the university or college. Therefore, this article still fails WP:GNG. ElKevbo (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the criteria Elkevbo is applying to this particular article is not standardized across Wikipedia. I think we all know most articles suffer from a lack of outside independent sources. There is no set number or ratio of "independent" source required by Wikipedia. Again, this is subjective. This is especially true for university college articles, which all suffer from a very high ratio of non-independent sourcing because the main sources, available online and tracking a university college history is generally the university itself. Does this really make it a bad source? No. The information I am sourcing is generally dates of events, names of programs and chairs of departments, which are not controversial or political. Major public universities aren't motivated to lie about the type of facts I use in this article. Why Elkevbo is so focused on deleting this particular university college article leads me to believe he is not an unbiased editor. What Elkevbo fails to mention is that most newspapers today are paywalled and this has a significant impact on a writer's ability to source historic information from independent sources online - especially historical information about public institutions with histories over 100 years. We writers do our very best to source a document like this with all the information that is still available online. Most of the original independent news articles for this topic are only partially available online from independent archives. Even still, I believe I have provided the necessary sources, many from a combination of independent archives and non-independent (but highly reliable university) sources, to fulfil Wikipedia's minimum criteria for notability.
50.35.127.4 (talk) 50.35.127.4 (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusations of bad faith are growing tiresome; cut it out. ElKevbo (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not agree with ElKevbo's position. Walt Yoder (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment following relist: I fear I am not quite following the guideline-based argument above. It seems we all agree that INHERITORG is not part of the GNG and does not apply here per NSCHOOL. That means we are back to the ordinary English-language understanding of what it means for a source to cover something. I don't think anyone would dispute that coverage of the Whoville Arts District is also coverage of Whoville, or that coverage of some building's historic cupola is also coverage of the building, etc. Of course some part-whole relationships are so attenuated or obscure that they can't reasonably be counted in this way without slipping into OR, but I don't think the straightforward relationship of a college to its component schools and buildings falls into that category.
    Given the above, it seems plain that the sources already at hand meet the GNG, e.g. [1], [2], [3]. (This is not to say that I think we are obligated to cover the college as a whole rather than an assemblage of parts, but I am not persuaded that anything prohibits it, and it seems like better encyclopedic practice to me.) -- Visviva (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand the reference to WP:NSCHOOL. It states: "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both." It's not clear if it's intended to apply to colleges that are part of universities or only standalone colleges but I'll concede that it's plausible that it should apply to constituent colleges. Even if that is the case, the available sources do not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ORG. GNG says that the topic must have "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention." ORG says that the subject must have "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The sources don't meet those criteria. this source is about a creative arts center, this source is about the university's history, and this source is about a couple of new majors at the university. In each of them - and all of the other sources in the article - the subject of the article, the college, is only mentioned in passing.
    I understand that it seems weird that a college at an accredited research university has not been the subject of significant documentation. But it's reality - some colleges simply have not had cohesive identities and missions such that they have lent themselves to scholarly study, internal navel gazing, media attention, and other forms of meaningful, focused documentation. Some colleges exist primarily or exclusively as a way to organize a bunch of academic units. There are several of those kinds of colleges at my university. They're not bad or dysfunctional organizations and nor is this college. But they don't meet our notability criteria. And frankly we'd have to really contort ourselves to piece together an article about them - just as editors are doing now for this college.
    If someone wants to propose that WP:ORG be amended to make colleges and equivalent constituent units of legitimate universities automatically notable, please do so. But until there is a change along those lines this college - and many others - don't meet our notability guidelines. (And if someone wants to just WP:IAR this, please do so explicitly - it's not an unreasonable position.) ElKevbo (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a college affiliated with a major public university. How much more obviously notable can you get? Steven Walling • talk 06:47, 26 July 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oregon_State_University_College_of_Liberal_Arts&oldid=1168613771"