Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Griffith University Law School: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:52, 26 June 2008

Griffith University Law School

fails WP:CORP notability not established from independent sources Michellecrisp (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Griffith University per the normal practice for university departments. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Nick. Having said that, there is no reason why university departments can't be notable in their own right, or can't be spun out from over large parent articles. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Law schools, just like medical schools etc, are notable--they are of more significance than university departments, as major components of a university with generally a semi-autonomous organisation DGG (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this the case for this institution? Or are you making the case that Law Schools are inherently notable? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with above, there is no general rule about medical or law schools being more notable than other parts of a university. This has to be assessed on a case a case basis. In Australia, law and medical schools generally fall under Faculties and are no more autonomous than say an engineering school. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is more notable than the great majority of other article topics. It's a useful resource for people studying law.Osloinsummertime (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see WP:USEFUL -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Again no specific independent third party evidence is provided in the article of meeting WP:CORP as per below Michellecrisp (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability

Comment The article has three or so independent citations. It is incorrect to say there is no evidence. In addition, the block quote above is out of context. There are many other relevant guidelines. WP:DELETION Osloinsummertime (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 3 independent citations in an article that has existed for over 1.5 years is hardly enough evidence to satisfy WP:CORP. What I am looking for is third party evidence eg from several newspaper or the law society that states that is more than a normal law school. Has it produced notable alumni? Michellecrisp (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Michellecrisp, I think these questions are rather arbitrary and not clearly relevant. Osloinsummertime (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment clearly relevant, any organisation article in Wikipedia must satisfy WP:CORP. You seem to shy away from the fact that there is little third party evidence of notability. If you want a good law school article to compare look at Harvard Law School. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Too bad it isn't a middle school. If all the middle school inclusionists would line up for graduate schools like they do for middle schools, this discussion would have been speedily closed. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The school is covered, in the Griffith University article. Further, the school is not a graduate school; it offers undergraduate courses. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incorrect: As the article itself notes, the school has graduate and undergraduate LLB programmes. It also has masters and PhD degrees.Osloinsummertime (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Griffith University. This has the benefit of being an easy solution. That way no information is lost and if the subject meets the notability requirements in the future, nothing will prevent it from being split into it's own article. Farside6 (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have checked the Social Sciences Research Network and found the law school is #74 in the list of 100 Top International Law Schools. I believe this is measured by reference to impact (citations, etc.) of faculty scholarship. I'll add this independent source directly to the article.Osloinsummertime (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable in its own right. Satisfys WP:N.--Sting Buzz Me... 10:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fail to see why this came here. We don't delete tertiary, degree awarding bodies and the question of a possible merge to the parent university is a matter for a separate editorial action for which AfD is inappropriate. TerriersFan (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is not a standalone school. If the above argument is true then it follows then every school of Griffith University and every university should have its own article, clearly WP:CORP must be satisfied first. There seems to be some misconception here that this law school is like a North American law school. In Australia, that is rarely the case, as they are predominantly undergraduate (often with students doing combined degrees with other schools), and are no more autonomous than saw an engineering school or psychology department. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What happened to favouring case-by-case reasoning, Michelle? As I said, the website shows that the school is a graduate school in large part. But why does that even matter? More important, since not a single person here (besides Michelle) has said this site should be deleted, I added a "close" tag. The guidelines suggested this was appropriate. Michelle has erased the tag. Can anyone advise what is appropriate as there is no consensus favouring deletion? (While you are at it, Michelle and I seem to disagree about whether the notability tag on the article should remain. Since this debate began I changed the article to add a very important third party source establishing notability. Is it safe to say, now, that we should simply leave the site alone and turn to debating the notability of other articles now?Osloinsummertime (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A number of editors, including myself, have voted to merge this with the article on the uni, which is pretty much the same as deletion as the article will become a redirect. It seems that the 'all schools are notable' crowd is charging into this debate, and I doubt that they have much knowledge of how Australian universities are run (eg, that this is a university department rather than an independant 'school' and that it doesn't award its own degrees and post-graduate qualifications). The schools deletion sorting list is becoming a bit of a problem, IMO, as any nominations of post-primary schools attracts the same faces asserting that the school is notable. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentClosing a discussion is the role of an administrator, not someone who doesn't want the article deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators Michellecrisp (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While WP:NAC may be used in limited circumstances, this AfD has one delete and three merge/redirect comments, so the outcome is far from clear at present. WWGB (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The process is not supposed to be a vote so much. It's a debate. I think the onus is on the single 'delete' voice to address and refute the arguments thus far made against deletion. Also, it would be useful for those recommending merge to address the recent addition of the arguably quite important new citation in the article. Osloinsummertime (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not my role to refute every counterargument. I am happy to let the process run and await the outcome. Appreciate if you do the same. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't believe there's enough here to justify it sitting out of the main uni article. Murtoa (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that it publishes a peer-reviewed journal, the Griffith law review, surely gives it some notability. The article could be better written. Other recent university law schools in Australia, such as Deakin Law School, UNSW Faculty of Law, Monash University Faculty of Law, have their own article. Surprisingly there's not one on ANU Law School. Mathsci (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As do Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and UWS. WWGB (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems similar to Deakin Law School. the others have notability more clearly established especially through a list of many notable alumni. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Michelle, my point about refutation is this: When you present an argument, and I then argue it is wrong, it's good form either to drop the argument or keep at it only after refuting my counter-argument. As it is, I believe you are repeating points without acknowledging their weaknesses. For example, why persist with the "notable alumni" line of argument (which, in my opinion, is arbitrary) while ignoring the independent citation I added (which, as I argued and you ignored, is a very solid source)? There is not much sense in that. Osloinsummertime (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many Australian university departments have their own peer-reviewed journals which put out a few brief issues each year, so this isn't any particular distinction. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be appropriate to distinguish between Australian law schools originating in the 19C, the 1960's and the 1990's. It is unreasonable to expect law schools founded in the 1990s, such as UWS School of Law or the other two already mentioned, to number high court judges or ambassadors amongst their alumni. The Faculty of Law, Cambridge lists no alumni; there is no article on the faculty of law at the University of Oxford although there is one on the undergraduate Oxford Law Society. There appear to be no hard and fast rules. Mathsci (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone should probably, then, add a notability tag to the Cambridge law school.Osloinsummertime (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a law school. It's notable. Rebecca (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick Google search turned up notable alumni, now added to the article, which should satisfy Michelle.Osloinsummertime (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please keep discussion to article not me. Michellecrisp (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's easier to refer to a point someone made when you use her name.Osloinsummertime (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Law schools arent inherently notable, some may indeed be notable, this one most certainly isnt. It fails WP:CORP. The lack of reliable third-party sources is certainly a worry. Redirect the page to Griffith University, with the option to recreate if significant third-party sources can be found. Five Years 06:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fiveyears: If it were certain, we wouldn't have the different views represented in this debate. In what ways are the third party sources weak?Osloinsummertime (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are three references for this article: the speech - which appears to be incidental coverage, a somewhat relevant piece on indigenous education at the law school, and a piece which is restricted. Im simply not convinced that this is sufficient to base an article on. Five Years 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 'restricted' piece is the important one. I believe it's not actually restricted; you can get a free log in identity. In any case, not all WP references have to be free and open to all like WP itself is.Osloinsummertime (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYN is a problem here - its "notability" is stitched together from three entirely unrelated sources, two of which do not strictly speaking meet WP:RS. Orderinchaos 16:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They seem on their face related to notability; it is your onus to explain why they aren't. It isn't at all clear how they're "unrelated" (to each other? to notability?) much less that they are entirely so. The citation to WP:SYN and assertion of "stitching" are similarly conclusory, presented without any backing.Osloinsummertime (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Griffith University - non notable outside the context of Griffith (it doesn't have its own students per se, Griffith has students who study law). Orderinchaos 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not accurate; it is a law School not a law department.Osloinsummertime (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia (and I've been a student for a fairly long time, and did once study law) Departments are within Schools which are within Faculties which are (at some places) within Divisions. There's *dozens* of "schools" within any University. In fact, their website tells me: "Griffith University has 46 schools and faculties, organised into ten study areas." Among others included is the Griffith School of Environment. This site confirms that in order to enrol you enrol through the State tertiary admissions centre into the University under the law programme, so you're not in fact a student of a separate school if successful. Orderinchaos 00:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I follow your reasoning. The bottom line is that Griffith Law School is a law school, no more or less than any other law school. Law schools have special prestige status within most universities where they are present and, most importantly, have the formal status allowing them to confer professional qualifications. Osloinsummertime (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Special prestige status"? Clear original research. It is not a separate law school, it is very much part of Griffith University, just as its School of Environment is part of Griffith University, and the School of Arts at the university I presently study at is part of that venerable institution. This is a very different situation to that found outside of Australia, where separate law schools do indeed exist. This seems like some grown-up version of schoolcruft trying to rear its ugly head here. Orderinchaos 16:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your school is worthy of inclusion on WP too; I can't see how separateness matters to notability. There is already ample evidence on WP that law schools in Australia are unique, separate, what have you; but again, the question of "separateness" is an irrelevancy. Osloinsummertime (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Griffith University. I don't think there's enough here for the article to stand on its own, but it certainly fits within the larger university page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a standalone article per the numerous precedents provided above by Mathsci and WWGB, and also on the grounds that this article contains a similar amount of prose as Griffith University already, merging it in would rather unbalance that article. --Stormie (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the content needs to be either edited out or trimmed down, so I don't think this is a problem. I personally think the other "precedents" (note WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an invalid ground for argument) should be deleted too. Orderinchaos 11:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 ::*The 'restricted' piece is the important one. I believe it's not actually restricted; you can get a free log in identity. In any case, not all WP references have to be free and open to all like WP itself is.[[User:Osloinsummertime|Osloinsummertime]] ([[User talk:Osloinsummertime|talk]]) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 :::[[WP:SYN]] is a problem here - its "notability" is stitched together from three entirely unrelated sources, two of which do not strictly speaking meet [[WP:RS]]. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 16:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
+::: They seem on their face related to notability; it is your onus to explain why they aren't. It isn't at all clear how they're "unrelated" (to each other? to notability?) much less that they are ''entirely'' so. The citation to [[WP:SYN]] and assertion of "stitching" are similarly conclusory, presented without any backing.[[User:Osloinsummertime|Osloinsummertime]] ([[User talk:Osloinsummertime|talk]]) 07:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Merge/redirect''' to [[Griffith University]] - non notable outside the context of Griffith (it doesn't have its own students per se, Griffith has students who study law). [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 ::* Not accurate; it is a law ''School'' not a law department.[[User:Osloinsummertime|Osloinsummertime]] ([[User talk:Osloinsummertime|talk]]) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)