Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne State University School of Social Work

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 article was rescued and survived this AfD, and many improvements helped the article to pass WP:GNG, so that results to KEEP the article. (non-admin closure) newroderick895 (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne State University School of Social Work[edit]

Wayne State University School of Social Work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This only cites its own website, and the material could easily be covered in the WSU article. I don't think this passes notability. I don't know if there's any use in trying to merge it, or if it should be deleted outright. Natureium (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@StewdioMACK: The article was created less than 24 hours before this AfD was commenced. How in the world is a "process of continual edits" to improve the article a point for criticism? To the contrary, such a process is natural and praiseworthy in the early stages of an article like this. Cbl62 (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: Apologies, did not realise how recently the article was created. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another ranking site places Wayne State's School of Social Work at #17 nationally for its undergraduate program. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another that ranks Wayne State School of Social Work #2 nationally behind Boston University for its on-line programs. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE is specified as not a reason for notability of a topic. This one came to my attention while patrolling because more than 1 article was created yesterday for a WSU department, and both that I found were worthy of merging. The other one is just a copyvio history of the dept and a list of courses. Natureium (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Natureium: WP:OSE does not mean that reference should never be made to similar classes of articles. To the contrary, it states: "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability ..., and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." My citation of comparable schools of social works is wholly consistent with this principle. Given the national rankings of Wayne State's School of Social Work, and its history dating back to 1935 (making it one of the oldest such schools), please reconsider your position here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft so sources such as the rankings and newspaper articles outside of primary can be added to the article. Leave a redirect to WSU and embedded note in the meantime. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: The rankings have now been added to the article. This article now has more than sufficient content for a new article (AfD commenced < 24 hours after creation). I see no valid reason not to allow this article to continue to develop in main space. Cbl62 (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have significant coverage in secondary sources to meet WP:GNG? A ranking is usually a passing mention. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This question also applies to the other WSU article you just dePRODed (without fixing anything). Natureium (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An academic program's national ranking by a respected and independent authority such as U.S. News & World Report Best Global University Ranking is not a mere "passing reference". To the contrary, such rankings are the bedrock upon which academic institutions compete fiercely and upon which professorial and student recruiting and grant funding rise or fall. A search of newspapers.com turns up 1,259 hits for Wayne State's School of Social Work. Cbl62 (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So the articles are where? WP:ORGCRIT Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice#Faculties_and_academic_colleges AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect nothing I can say will change your view, but that's ok, we can respectfully disagree. In any event, it remains my view that the U.S. News & World Report Best Global University Ranking ranking represents significant coverage (indeed, some of the most significant coverage an academic institution can receive) from an independent source, as do the two other independent services ranking this school in the top 20 social work programs in the US. I have also now added several newspaper sources. There is no need for every newspaper source to be added to the article to pass the test of WP:GNG. Your reliance ORGCRIT is misplaced as WP:NORG and WP:NSCHOOL have been amended within the last month pursuant to an RfC to omit the more limited and prescriptive application to schools and to provide that schools qualify if GNG is satisfied. The article was created within the past 48 hours and should be allowed time to develop -- no different than the articles on the other nationally-ranked social work schools referenced above. And WP:UNIGUIDE is a mere essay that does not in any way modify the GNG standards. Still not seeing a valid reason to single out Wayne State when comparable social work schools (many ranked below Wayne -- and, moreso, just about every high school in America) have had stable articles for years. See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." The idea that Podunk High School should have an article but a nationally-ranked graduate school cannot is, well, simply ludicrous. Cbl62 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:ORG "Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement: [...] * inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists"", it does not count as significant coverage. This is applicable as per WP:NSCHOOL, "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both." For your second point, WSU has an article. An individual unit of a school does not need to have an article. Natureium (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:ORG has been recently amended to expressly state that those prescriptive requirements do not apply to schools and that it is sufficient for a school to pass WP:GNG. Indeed, the second passage you quote says precisely that, i.e., the use of the conjuction "or". Finally, your suggestion that the clear guidance of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be ignored represents Orwellian newspeak, i.e., you are asserting that the WSU School of Social Work is not a school. That argument would have merit if we were talking about a mere academic department within a school or college, but it is incorrect when applied to a separately accredited school or college, even one operating under the broader umbrella of a university. Cbl62 (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 05:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft I agree with AngusWOOF that we need independent sources that are substantive and that by themselves rankings are insufficient. If there are other articles that also need to be moved to draft space to be consistent with WP:GNG then we'll do that, too. ElKevbo (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the point would be of moving it to draft, as the article is now well developed with abundant independent sourcing -- more than any of the myriad other articles on school of social work. Compare Category:Schools of social work in the United States. Given that we allow articles about small-town high schools, challenging the notability of a nationally-ranked graduate program with an 80-year history of contributing to an important field of study belies all prior precedent with school articles. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." I'm really at a loss to understand the determined struggle to undermine this newly-created article on a well-respected institution of higher education. Cbl62 (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an independent school; the university already has an article. If this specific unit of the university is sufficiently notable for its own article then the sourcing in the article does not currently reflect that e.g., you claim that the school has a history of "contributing to an important field of study" but there aren't any independent sources supporting that claim.
The basic underlying premise of WP:N is that we need multiple independent sources that focus specifically on a topic if we're to write an encyclopedia article about it. Frankly, there are very few college and university units - colleges, schools, department, research groups, etc. - that can pass that bar. I imagine that most of those are independently famous (e.g., MIT's Media Lab) or have a lasting and profound influence on their discipline such that even people outside of the discipline have a vague inkling of that influence e.g., the University of Chicago's sociology department and their economics department. So most units, including this one, simply aren't notable by Wikipedia standards. It's not a slight against the unit or its parent organization, just a reflection of the larger context in which we live and the relative importance that we collectively place on publicizing the work and influence of these units. ElKevbo (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quick clarification: I !voted "Move to draft" as a kindness to the author and other editors interested in this article; the closer is free to interpret it as "Delete" if that is easier or more appropriate. (I'd be fine with moving most articles that fail GNG but have a glimmer of passing at some later date into draft space but that is not a workable, sustainable practice.) ElKevbo (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comments have greater validity in the context of academic departments within a college or university, but professional schools have separate deans and are "independently accredited". It would be a strange encyclopedia, indeed, if we deemed every high school and every community/junior college to be notable, but at the same time denied the notability of a nationally-ranked professional school.
  • The fact that most nationally-ranked social work schools (and other professional schools) have Wikipedia articles suggests that your assessment of school notability is far different than the broader Wikipedia community. Under your standard, none of the 31 schools of social work that currently have articles (Category:Schools of social work in the United States) would pass muster as none has the level of independent sourcing that you demand. Indeed, the Wayne article has far more independent sourcing than any of the others.
  • The community's broad consensus on the notability of such "independently accredited" schools is reflected in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (quoted above), a standard that this article plainly meets.
  • For proof that your narrow standard (limiting articles on professional schools within broader universities to profoundly influential institutions such as MIT and U. Chicago) has not been accepted by the Wikipedia community, one need only examine the relevant categories, e.g. Category:Schools of medicine in the United States (> 200 schools with articles), Category:Law schools in the United States by state (> 200 schools with articles), Category:Engineering universities and colleges in the United States by state (> 150 schools with articles), Category:Pharmacy schools in the United States (> 60 schools with articles), and Category:Schools of education in the United States by state (> 65 schools with articles).
  • In sum, this is a good and healthy debate, but current community standards do not warrant singling out WSU's nationally-ranked School of Social Work for deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct: I do think that the vast majority of all of the articles you've mentioned fail WP:GNG by lacking independent sources and should be deleted. My intuition is that most of them were created and edited by people with blatant conflicts of interest (e.g., staff, alumni). Like much of Wikipedia, this is an area that receives little attention outside of a handful of editors and many of those editors are only interested in promoting their employer or alma mater, usually in brief, unrepeated spurts of editing. So articles are created that don't meet our wider standards and allowed to remain only because they slip under the radar. All this to say that my comments and !votes here aren't out of some strange prejudice against this school; I don't think that anyone, especially our colleagues who haven't provided any details or explanation, has made the case that this article (nor most of the ones you've mentioned) pass our basic standards of notability. We've pasted together self-interested, minor sources into a lot of paper mache articles and that, of course, is not structurally sound. ElKevbo (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. There are plenty of issues where I have a subjective belief that fans have overdone it, e.g., professional wrestling, MMA, anime/manga, but I nevertheless believe that our current methods of assessing community consensus are far preferable to an elitist, imposed-from-above approach to decide which topics "belong" in a "proper" encyclopedia. (BTW, I have zero affiliation with Wayne State.) Cbl62 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe that a lot of those probably do not pass notability requirements, however, there is a much higher likelihood that law schools and medical schools are independently notable apart of their universities, because of the amount of research and public interest work done that draws media attention to those schools. Natureium (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – well sourced and is notable as shown by others. Corky 17:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the GNG sources that are "well sourced"? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is coverage cited in the article from U.S. News & World Report, The Detroit News, Detroit Free Press, Chicago Tribune, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Holland Evening Sentinel, and more. That's pretty solid for an article created less than a week ago. And far more than any other article in Category:Schools of social work in the United States. Cbl62 (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those are local news sources? Natureium (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters, but U.S. News & World Report, Chicago Tribune, St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Holland Evening Sentinel are not local, and the Detroit Free Press is a major metropolitan daily/regional paper. Cbl62 (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article was NOT well-sourced until this past weekend when Cbl62 started adding a detailed and sourced History section. See [1] which was what most of the discussion was based on. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that Cbl62 has done an admirable article rescue attempt. In the state the article was originally in, I would have voted to delete, but the article is now much-improved. Neutralitytalk 22:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stated above it is much improved, and superior to other schools in Schools of social work Category. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2018 (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/Wayne_State_University_School_of_Social_Work&oldid=1138729408"