Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directed Studies at Yale University

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Directed Studies at Yale University[edit]

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

No significant coverage outside non-Yale sources. Third-party sources only make passing mentions of the program. Not much improvement since last PROD 8 years ago may indicate that there's nothing really much to write about this program for it to be an article in its own right. 舎利弗 (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

It would have made sense to hit the talk page with a heads up it's worth attempting to engage the page history and/or talk page before bringing this to AFD because I would have mentioned these things. And at the very least, this title was always a candidate for redirect to something like great books rather than needing outright deletion. czar ♔ 13:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the links provided, only the first one qualifies as a third-party source that has significant coverage. All other sources only make passing mention and cannot contribute to the actual content of the article. The last source is explicitly affiliated with Yale. One source, describing the contents of the program, is not enough to establish notability IMO. 舎利弗 (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading the second source at the citation provided. There is plenty enough in what I provided to meet the GNG, and I haven't even dipped into the book sources yet. If you think the above links are insufficient, you'd love the WPVG fictional characters discussion right now. czar ♔ 20:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE is not a valid argument. But seriously, I can similarly provide sources as shallow as these for programs of obscure universities in Asia. Do you think Wikipedia should include an article for every academic program that has a couple of documents online describing its contents? This needs sources, most preferably outside academia, that provide significant coverage of it (i.e., not passing mentions) to truly establish its notability. Otherwise this should just be merged and redirected to a Yale University article if not deleted entirely. 舎利弗 (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a historian of education. The vast majority of the work that is interested in this program will be academic. I didn't make an OSE argument—I suggested that your bar for sigcov is super high and referenced a dialogue whose bar is super low. This is a landmark and distinct classics program in one of the world's best known universities, and I showed you sources that indicate as much. Comparing it to something "obscure" is self-defeating. Of course something "obscure" is less likely to be notable. That isn't the case here. I have nothing else to add. I'm very familiar with the policies. czar ♔ 22:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I almost !voted keep, but I think 舎利弗's arguments convinced me otherwise. This is not the type of content that is going to be valuable to anyone outside of a narrow selection of readers. The content should be summarized and included in the Yale University article.- Mr X 16:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per 舎利弗. A sentence about it at the Yale University-page, referenced with [1] will give sufficiet coverage to it.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per 舎利弗's arguments and MrX SW3 5DL (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and MrX, as above. --Bejnar (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2014 (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.