Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Department of Psychology, NTNU

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. Sandstein 08:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Psychology, NTNU[edit]

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

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

Insufficient evidence oif notability . We usually restrict articles on academic department in a university to the very few most famous one in the world. Two nobelists who shared a prize for joint work is not sufficient to achieve that. None of the references are actualy about the deparrtment. DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How many university departments are there with two Nobel laureates then? (And how many psychology departments?) I find literally tons of articles on quite ordinary educational institutions, including university departments that are nothing out of the ordinary (to mention just one example, massive coverage of all Category:Departments of the University of Manchester such as Psychological Sciences at The University of Manchester which seems like a quite ordinary psychology department, certainly less known than this one; the University of Manchester as a university is roughly on the same level as NTNU, NTNU is probably more recognised in some respects). Plus, of course, tons of articles on obscure high schools with fewer employees, fewer students and no notable research, all three meaningful criteria for an educational/research institution. There are entire universities in the US that are both smaller and less significant than this department.

The department has existed for 50+ years, is one of Norway's two main psychology departments and includes a Nobel Prize-winning research group of some 100+ scientists. In its field this is one of the world's leading research environments. The department is part of the country's largest university with over 40,000 students and nearly 8,000 employees so material on all the individual departments wouldn't belong in the main university article.

Also, the Nobel Prize for the two Mosers is just one of several honours the research environment based at the institute has received; it was also one of 13 research groups appointed as elite research environments by the Government of Norway in 2002, and it is one of the world's Kavli Institutes (certainly all the other universities with Kavli Institutes are among the world's leading).

Also, while the department has been part of NTNU since 1996, it was originally an independent educational/research institution. --Ella Sjødyr (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Ella Sjødyr: I think you make a good argument that the institutions work prior to it's merger into the university may be a good reason to justify keeping an article on the department. That would be contingent though on finding significant coverage on the Psykologisk institutt prior to 1996. If you can find references like that I would support you in keeping this article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The first reference is a 342-page book about the institution's history from 1946 to 1996 (when NTNU was formed by the merger of several university-level institutions in Trondheim). In my opinion the more important issue here, though, is that the department is at least as significant, and in many, many cases more significant, than all the hundreds of other articles on university departments that I can find, and that it would seem particularly odd to delete what is not only a very large, well-established and reputable psychology department at a well-established, reputable university, but in fact the world's only psychology department with any research that has/academics who have been awarded a Nobel prize.

- In a list of psychology research institutions, psychology at NTNU with its offshoots, with its combined 200 scientists and a long list of awards, including the government appointment as elite research environment in 2002 and the Nobel prize for the Mosers, would easily belong to "the very few most famous ones in the world" (which doesn't appear to be the general criterion anyway, for anyone who has ever looked into other articles on university departments here). --Ella Sjødyr (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. @Ella Sjødyr: Your inexperience in wikipedia AFDs is showing here. Arguments not based in wikipedia policy will not convince other editors to support an article's inclusion. The main policies at issue in this case are WP:SIGCOV, WP:ORG, WP:GNG, and WP:Verifiability. Making claims without citing evidence doesn't go over well because wikipedia is not interested in what is true and but what is verifiably true. If you want people to support you, you need to show url links to independent secondary and tertiary sources where either the Department of Psychology, NTNU or the Psykologisk institutt is the main subject of that coverage (ie not just secondary to a larger article on the university). Offline sources that are independent of the subject can also bolster your argument by listing them here in this discussion. You will need to provide the Title, Author(s), Publisher, Date/year of Publication, and page numbers along with a description as to how this source is a significant supporting reference (ie the source must cover the topic more than just in passing). If you cannot provide this kind of evidence the article will be deleted. The book you gave possibly lends toward notability, however, Tapir Akademisk Forlag appears to be owned and operated by a student organization and I am not sure if this publishers works are considered reliable (ie peer reviewed and not self published). So far there appears to be only one good potential source (and not if the publisher isn't good). Wikipedia require at least three quality sources to pass WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addtional comment. The nobel prizes only confer notability on the actual winners and not to the department because WP:notability is not inherited. The only way to prove notability is by showing evidence of three verifiable sources that are independent of the subject where the Department of Psychology, NTNU is the central focus of those sources. If you can't do that then the guidelines for inclusion tell us to delete.4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- no:Tapir Akademisk Forlag was a well-established academic publisher in Norway from 1921 to 2012 when it merged to become Akademika forlag, one of Norway's current main academic publishers, and the author of the book was a recognised scholar (for instance the Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and Letters published a collection of essays in honour of him in 1998[1]). The fact that the student welfare organisation in Trondheim was a shareholder (but not really involved in actually running the company) has no bearing on the publisher's standing, and in fact, academic publishers (and journals) owned by student welfare organisations and such are quite common (Sweden's main academic publisher is also such a publisher). As far as I can see there is no general criterion to have exactly three sources, and the article includes adequate sources at this point (the article includes six, including one particularly high-quality, particularly in-depth source). Of course more could be found for a department mentioned in national news media every day, but for me to spend further time on improving the article, rather than concentrating on my work on the Norwegian Wikipedia where I don't have to waste time on unproductive discussions instead, I would like to see a more constructive attitude than the unwarranted close policing of the article and application of entirely different standards than those normally, overwhelmingly applied to comparable articles in the US and UK so far.

- The Nobel prizes of full-time staff are clearly relevant, also when evaluating the department's notability, and in fact all articles on universities with any Nobel prize laureates go out of their way to mention them both in the lead and body. The Nobel prize is really just one of several expressions of the fact that the institution's research activity is considered particularly significant; the appointment of the entire research environment (not just individuals) as elite research environment by the Government years before the Nobel prize was another example of that. --Ella Sjødyr (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ella Sjødyr: I suggest you read Wikipedia:I don't agree with that, because you simply keep restating yourself and arguing with people constantly (and being rather condescending and un-collaborative with those trying to work with you here) when they have a different opinion. This article was brought to WP:Articles for Deletion by a concerned editor. This is where we appropriately review articles by following our written policies. The policies have broad consensus behind them. You may not like them, but they are implemented consistently. Having multiple secondary sources that show significant coverage is a non-negotiable here at AFD per policy, and this is something you are just going to have to accept if you want to edit on wikipedia with success.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails the significant coverage guideline of WP:GNG. While assuming in good faith that the book is a quality reference, it is the only single reference in the article of significance. The newspaper article "NTNU-sentre vant forsker-millioner" is merely a press release of governmental research funds given to the university, as well as to several other institutions. The articles about the Nobel prizes are primarily about the faculty members and not the institution. As stated above, notability is not inherited. The article Fenton, André A. (2015-06-01). "Coordinating with the "Inner GPS"". Hippocampus. 25 (6): 763–769 is a journal article not about the institution but researched at the institution making it a primary source which is not usable per WP:Verifiability. WIth only one good reference, there is not enough evidence to support inclusion.4meter4 (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Your false claim that Adresseavisen publishes "press releases" really shows your lack of understanding of both sources and this topic area. I'm quite sure: Had the US government appointed 13 elite research environments in the US, based at the country's most recognised universities, that also went on to win Nobel prizes and other honours (both institutional and individual), US-based editors would have been enraged if Norwegian editors had insisted that the institutions weren't notable or that the main newspapers in the US just published "press releases", and in fact, they don't have a problem at all with endless streams of articles on quite ordinary university departments in Anglophone countries, whose only source is typically a "Portrait of a University", published by the university, not even about the department. --Ella Sjødyr (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again Ella Sjødyr, it's about 13 research institutions so the Department of Psychology, NTNU is not really the main subject, the money being awarded is. Significant coverage has to be an article specifically about the Department of Psychology, NTNU as a whole, not an awarded grant to 13 institutions. You are once again not hearing what I am saying or comprehending the policy accurately. Please feel free to bring any United States University Departments to AFD and I will evaluate them the same way I am here. (FYI there are only two other Department of Psychology articles on wikipedia, and I doubt either of them would survive an AFD)4meter4 (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now nominated the only wikipedia article on a Department of Psychology in United States for deletion using the same rationale as I have for this article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BYU College of Family, Home and Social Sciences. You and this article are not being targeted unfairly.4meter4 (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that article will end up getting deleted, but in any event it is far less notable as a research institution than this department. It's a college with some programs, and the article doesn't describe any notable research. As a university, Brigham Young University, established by the Mormons, is ranked as #77 within its own country; NTNU, established by the King of Norway, by comparison is often ranked as #2 in Norway (#1 in its core fields). The BYU College of Family, Home and Social Sciences article is one article in a series that seems to include all departments at Brigham Young University.

Instead of discussing a random, individual department it would be better for editors who disagree with the current, extensive coverage of university departments to start a more general discussion. We also have coverage of some 30 departments at the University of Manchester, a respectable but medium-tier university by UK standards (behind the likes of Oxford and Cambridge), and comparable coverage of numerous other universities. Personally, I don't understand any desire to get rid of such articles on university departments like this one, with its 1,100 students, 244 staff/scientists and a track-record of groundbreaking research, when we have thousands (tens of thousands?) of articles on high schools that are far less notable on all counts, and I think it would be more reasonable to discuss the coverage of all those high schools before getting rid of any university departments, both the more obscure ones such as those at Brigham Young University, and those that are world-leading in its fields, such as this department and departments at the top universities in the US (such as those other universities that, like NTNU/this department, have been awarded Kavli Institutes: Stanford, MIT, Johns Hopkins, Caltech and Harvard). --Ella Sjødyr (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the RFC at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It applies to all schools, and its reasoning applies here. Without significant coverage schools and their departments just are not notable. Please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, because those other topics either meet wikipedia's inclusion criteria or they don't. FYI, I only brought that other article up here because you accused me of nationality bias. I wanted to show you that I am impartial, and I am really just interested in this article meeting the criteria at WP:GNG. It's that simple.4meter4 (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Predictably, US-based editors are showing up in streams to keep the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BYU College of Family, Home and Social Sciences article on a fairly obscure and undistinguished US department of their country's #100 or so university (one of dozens of departments within that school with articles), while insisting that an article on a far more notable department in Norway with a large Nobel Prize-winning research group and national appointment as elite research environment must be deleted for inane reasons. If we ever needed any evidence of systemic bias against European (non-Anglophone) people or institutions, here it is. --Ella Sjødyr (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two people is hardly a stream. I'm confident policy will win out in the end.4meter4 (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Upon first seeing this I was wondering what was going on. As I read further, and looked at the article, it became clear there are notability issue. The Department of Psychology is one of seven in the Faculty of Social and Educational Sciences. The school has close to 60 departments and they are covered in the Norwegian University of Science and Technology article. I could not find secondary sourcing and see requests for any that might exist (if they can't be located on a search maybe they can be found in Norwegian sources) has been like carrying on a conversation with a brick wall. Notability is not inherited, so the merits of the Nobel prize winners do not transfer to the school. All of the above comments, defending the school and the article, could likely be found in primary sources except that does not satisfy sourcing criterion as primary sources do not advance notability. Lacking the above requested sourcing and unless shown as a Hey I have leaned towards delete. Otr500 (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2019 (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.