Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reindorf Review
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Reindorf Review (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)
There is only one secondary source in this entire page that is even remotely about the subject. This appears to be mostly WP:PROMO mixed with a WP:COATRACK for various anti-trans grievances. Regardless this appears to fail WP:GNG as there is no WP:SIGCOV. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Social science, and England. – The Grid (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep There are allegedly 10 sources on the page, but 4 are just from the review itself so ignoring those, I looked at the 6 remaining:
- Sex Matters [1] is certainly significant coverage, but looking at who they are, they call themselves a human rights charity, and the very name of the charity leads me to believe that this source is problematic because it is clearly advocacy. I am not sure exactly where this one falls down on GNG to be honest. It is independent, secondary and with significant coverage. I have no reason to say it is not reliable, but the advocacy is an issue.
- The Times [2] Lawyer demands inquiry into trans ‘gag’ by university is news reporting. A primary source.
- The Guardian [3] is on topic generally but I cannot see any mention of this review or of Essex.
- The Telegraph [4] As for the Guardian, no specific mention.
- The Irish Examiner [5] And another one that doesn't mention it.
- Impact [6] How can universities promote academic freedom? has significant coverage across two pages (23 and 24). It is independent, reliable and secondary. This one is very good.
- Sex Matters [1] is certainly significant coverage, but looking at who they are, they call themselves a human rights charity, and the very name of the charity leads me to believe that this source is problematic because it is clearly advocacy. I am not sure exactly where this one falls down on GNG to be honest. It is independent, secondary and with significant coverage. I have no reason to say it is not reliable, but the advocacy is an issue.
- So I broadly agree with the nom. that there is only one secondary source, but that first source, problematic as it is, still shows something. The Impact discussion lends quite a degree of credibility to the notability of the review, and the general subject is clearly notable. I would consider a suitable merge though. Although the review is at least marginally independently notable, the issue (as indicated by the newspapers that don't actually discuss the review) is wider than this specific review, and the review could be a case study in a larger article (as it is in Impact). Do we have a suitable article about academic freedom that this would belong in? If not, this should not be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Suissa and Sullivan article is a clearing house of "look at how important this anti-trans activist is" apologia. It should not be used to establish notability on an anti-trans topic. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- The topic, surely, is on academic freedom. Spinning this as anti-trans is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. The source demonstrates notability whether we agree with it or not, because it is a secondary treatment, using this as a notable case study. Indeed, although I was concerned about the advocacy element of Sex Matters, I do not actually see what is wrong with that one either, as regards notability, unless we can show the source is unreliable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Suissa and Sullivan article is a clearing house of "look at how important this anti-trans activist is" apologia. It should not be used to establish notability on an anti-trans topic. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. One secondary rs shouldn't be used to make a whole article. Agree with sirfurboy that this belongs as part of a larger article instead of its own stand alone article. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep These references could easily be added to the article demonstrating its significance and notability: The Times: Stonewall ‘gave bad advice’ to university in free speech row (Archived) "Stonewall has been accused of misrepresenting the law in its advice to Essex University, which failed to uphold free speech when it dropped speakers accused of transphobia." and the Guardian: Essex University makes further apology in trans rights row "Vice-chancellor says sorry over independent report’s impact on trans and non-binary staff and students". The report has also been cited here and here in the House of Lords by Lord Willetts during the debate on the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill. I'm sure more could be found if necessary but this is clearly a significant page that needs to be kept. Zeno27 (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- All four new links are useful links, but they are all also primary sources. For notability purposes we are looking for secondary sources. We have two, but the first is problematic. News reporting about the case is likely to be a primary source. However analysis about what the case tells us about, say, the application of such policies in UK universities would certainly be a secondary source. The Times article, for instance, is about a finding that the relationship between the University and Stonewall was flawed. That is reporting. The Guardian article reports their apology. Thus primary sources. The nature of what secondary sources are likely to look like (analysis of a situation of which this is a case study) does suggest to me that a merge somewhere appropriate would still be preferable to keep. We just need to find where (and if there isn't anywhere, we should probably keep this but recognise that a good development of this page would perhaps lead to a rename in the future). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Human Rights Quarterly: Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom in Higher Education in England 10.1353/hrq.2024.a926223 (pdf) "(ii) Incidents at Essex University Two incidents at Essex University attracted significant political and media attention and were the subject of an independent review by Akua Reindorf, a specialist employment law barrister."
- Times Higher Education: Essex apologises to academics disinvited over gender views (Archived) "The university’s vice-chancellor, Anthony Forster, made the “open apology” after receiving the report of an external review he commissioned on the cases. “The report makes clear that we have made serious mistakes and we need to do our very best to learn from these and to ensure they are not repeated,” he writes in a blog published on the university’s website. Essex’s apology comes at an important political moment, with the Westminster government having confirmed plans to introduce legislation on campus free speech in England." Zeno27 (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- McGoldrick (2024) is just the kind of secondary source I was expecting, with the primary topic expressed in the title, Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom in Higher Education in England. It is independent, reliable and secondary and has significant coverage across pages 8 and 9, beyond what you quote. This one is a , but I think it still begs a WP:PAGEDECIDE question. This review is not a subject in itself. There is a broader subject and this is a case study. The THES article is a very full one, covering all aspects of the case, including the relationship with Stonewall, but to me it is still a discursive primary source, reporting the apology. I would use it in an article, but I don't think it adds to the notability. However, I think we are already there on notability. The University website material is also clearly primary, as is the news about plans to introduce legislation. Again, this page should not be deleted, but I remain unconvinced that the review itself is really the primary subject. The THES and McGoldrick are really rather similar in what they say (although the THES adds a little regarding Stonewall). This is indicative of the fact that there is really not much more to say about this review. It is a case study. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- McGoldrick (2024) is just the kind of secondary source I was expecting, with the primary topic expressed in the title, Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom in Higher Education in England. It is independent, reliable and secondary and has significant coverage across pages 8 and 9, beyond what you quote. This one is a
- All four new links are useful links, but they are all also primary sources. For notability purposes we are looking for secondary sources. We have two, but the first is problematic. News reporting about the case is likely to be a primary source. However analysis about what the case tells us about, say, the application of such policies in UK universities would certainly be a secondary source. The Times article, for instance, is about a finding that the relationship between the University and Stonewall was flawed. That is reporting. The Guardian article reports their apology. Thus primary sources. The nature of what secondary sources are likely to look like (analysis of a situation of which this is a case study) does suggest to me that a merge somewhere appropriate would still be preferable to keep. We just need to find where (and if there isn't anywhere, we should probably keep this but recognise that a good development of this page would perhaps lead to a rename in the future). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)