Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health
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. John254 00:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contains no material of encyclopedic value that cannot be housed in the UoP article. Significantly, the article contains no third party independent sources indicating notability. Suggest merge the few notable content into parent, then delete this. There are similar pages devoted to departments that should be considered for deletion. The JPStalk to me 15:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the improvements and additions of third party sources, I'd like to withdraw this nomination. However, 'Schools'/'Departments' or whatever should not become complacent/arrogant. Wikipedia is not a directory, or a prospectus. Articles need independent sources for notability. I have tagged some as appropriate. The JPStalk to me 18:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, although not a well constructed page, and definitely worthy of an Expand tag, it is tagged as a stub and it fits well within the notability of the pages within the following Category:Schools of public health. It is a highly respected school (ranked 11th by U.S. News 2007 rankings) and has one of the best funded public health research programs (top 3) in the United States demonstrating its notability. This page could be improved thus negating the need for a delete. Although not the creator of the page (or a high priority for myself) given time over the next several days I will work on addressing the lack of third party independent sources for which there is legitimate concern. Other US Universities within similar pages for their Schools of Public Health include : Boston University School of Public Health, Columbia Mailman School of Public Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health, Rollins School of Public Health, San Diego State University College of Health & Human Services, Texas A&M Health Science Center School of Rural Public Health, UC Berkeley School of Public Health, UCLA School of Public Health, University of Florida College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Georgia College of Public Health, University of Michigan School of Public Health, University of South Florida College of Public Health, University of Texas School of Public Health, University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Yale School of Public Health. cp101p (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some departments are notable and there will be a strong case for keep for some of them. However, some of the above are little more that directory entries or prospectus-esque ("...offers MSc and PhD, etc."). They must have third party sources to indicate notability. The JPStalk to me 22:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree that many of those pages are problematic, but wouldn't a primary sources tag or expand tag be more appropriate before a delete tag is applied? There is the train of thought that most schools are notable (see endless entries for myriads of K-12 schools, etc). Therefore, any school of a major research University, especially large and well funded ones (10-100s of millions), are well within the realm of notability. However, specifically in regards to Pitt's school of public health, US News and NIH rankings (now referenced on main article) should, I believe, more than justify its notability. I have also added a historical blurb about its first Dean, U.S. Surgeon General Thomas Parran, Jr..cp101p (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your points. I have applied tags to most of the above. The only point I would dispute, really, is that they are departments, not individual institutions (although I'd expect that they'd be registered individually for different business purposes). I guess the relevant guideline here is that notability is not inherited. Anyway, whatever. :) The JPStalk to me 23:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I don't want to seem like I'm getting technical with you, schools are not departments and vice versa. For instance a "College", like Pitt's College of Arts and Sciences, is comprised of Departments such as Philosophy, Chemistry, Physics, History, Biology, etc. The School of Medicine includes the departments of neurology, pathology, endocrinology, anesthesiology, oncology, etc (and most have Divisions within the departments). The School of Public Health at Pitt consists of seven departments: Behavioral & Community Health Sciences, Biostatistics, Environmental & Occupational Health, Epidemiology, Health Policy & Management, Human Genetics, and Infectious Disease & Microbiology. These are all separate departments, and I agree, they don't deserve their own pages. There are also a variety of research Centers within the school. Schools generally offer and set up requirements for awarding their various academic credentials (although the University awards the degree). "Schools" also have their own Deans, fundraising arms, administration, admissions, publications, budgets, etc. They function somewhat independently within the overall context of the University. Many have histories that are separate from the university they ultimately become a part of (Penn State's Law School, Drexel's Med School, Radcliffe College at Harvard, etc). Generally "universities" (in the US) are considered "universities" because they are comprised of multiple schools or colleges and some institutions change their name to reflect this fact. Historically, Harvard College to Harvard University or Penn State College to Penn State University. More recently, Saint Francis College (PA) to Saint Francis University. Others prefer to keep their name despite growing into a university: e.g. Boston College. Therefore, I disagree with your assertion that these schools are simply departments, because they are really a much greater entity within any university. cp101p (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- added history section and references to make it more encyclopediccp101p (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- also would like to point out that the parent article is already too big and there is no room to merge into parent article.cp101p (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- added history section and references to make it more encyclopediccp101p (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I don't want to seem like I'm getting technical with you, schools are not departments and vice versa. For instance a "College", like Pitt's College of Arts and Sciences, is comprised of Departments such as Philosophy, Chemistry, Physics, History, Biology, etc. The School of Medicine includes the departments of neurology, pathology, endocrinology, anesthesiology, oncology, etc (and most have Divisions within the departments). The School of Public Health at Pitt consists of seven departments: Behavioral & Community Health Sciences, Biostatistics, Environmental & Occupational Health, Epidemiology, Health Policy & Management, Human Genetics, and Infectious Disease & Microbiology. These are all separate departments, and I agree, they don't deserve their own pages. There are also a variety of research Centers within the school. Schools generally offer and set up requirements for awarding their various academic credentials (although the University awards the degree). "Schools" also have their own Deans, fundraising arms, administration, admissions, publications, budgets, etc. They function somewhat independently within the overall context of the University. Many have histories that are separate from the university they ultimately become a part of (Penn State's Law School, Drexel's Med School, Radcliffe College at Harvard, etc). Generally "universities" (in the US) are considered "universities" because they are comprised of multiple schools or colleges and some institutions change their name to reflect this fact. Historically, Harvard College to Harvard University or Penn State College to Penn State University. More recently, Saint Francis College (PA) to Saint Francis University. Others prefer to keep their name despite growing into a university: e.g. Boston College. Therefore, I disagree with your assertion that these schools are simply departments, because they are really a much greater entity within any university. cp101p (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your points. I have applied tags to most of the above. The only point I would dispute, really, is that they are departments, not individual institutions (although I'd expect that they'd be registered individually for different business purposes). I guess the relevant guideline here is that notability is not inherited. Anyway, whatever. :) The JPStalk to me 23:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree that many of those pages are problematic, but wouldn't a primary sources tag or expand tag be more appropriate before a delete tag is applied? There is the train of thought that most schools are notable (see endless entries for myriads of K-12 schools, etc). Therefore, any school of a major research University, especially large and well funded ones (10-100s of millions), are well within the realm of notability. However, specifically in regards to Pitt's school of public health, US News and NIH rankings (now referenced on main article) should, I believe, more than justify its notability. I have also added a historical blurb about its first Dean, U.S. Surgeon General Thomas Parran, Jr..cp101p (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I agree with the arguments by cp101p. A school is a distinct entity within a university, and can contain many departments. To delete the schools (medicine, nursing, dentistry, public health, law, business, etc.) and merge them into the university's article would create enormous articles. Articles for each school 1.) allows the university's article to be more manageable 2.) recognizes that schools at the same university are VERY different from each other. An expand tag may be warranted, but a delete tag is not. As far as notability, this seems foreign to me. How do you explain that a university is notable? That it exists? However you choose to determine that a university/college is notable (I propose that all are), then use that logic to determine if the school of business, law, public health, etc. is notable. Cmcnicoll (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why they should be given special preference. All articles need independent reliable sources. The JPStalk to me 15:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree with you that there should not be special preference given to universities or schools so that they somehow are above the need for 3rd party references to justify notability. Certainly, anyone could come up with their own "school", for instance, maybe something like "The Xxx School of Small Appliance Repair". This is where notability becomes an major issue and these pages are probably more attune to self promotion and are very problematic. Probably anyone associated with accredited or research academic settings would consider Colleges or Schools within (at least the major) universities to be notable. While this is certainly open for wider debate, there are literally 100s of precedents on Wikipedia for this being the case. In fact, many schools have pages for every obscure football or tidily wink coach dating back to 1869. Certainly, I don't mean to be attacking those pages here, but the point is it is the context pages are presented in, along with how those pages are organized within the scope of an overall topic, i.e. University or College, is very important. For instance, there are pages that exist for every way-station on a particular metro line. Are these in themselves notable? No, but within the context of the overall presentation of material for a particular metro system they make sense for the completeness the thoroughness of the information. They certainly pass the no new original-research and no self-promotion tests, but again, their organization within the overall topic is key. I think there is a larger issue here, which is primarily the creation of "page-holder" or stub pages without adequate timely follow-up. It appears to me that many pages are created with insufficient content with the intention of encouraging future development of that topic by others. Problems occur when editors, like myself, only have access to internet resources, and not primary (hardcopy) resources more likely to be found in closer to the physical location of the topic (e.g. local libraries) when trying to follow up on these pages. Another problem comes from deleting the "skeletal" articles due to insufficient resources because many of them have taken the use of the most appropriate Wikipeida titles for their topic and if someone does come along later with an interest in creating an adequately researched page, they'll get the previous deletion notification. Plus, there is the issue of precedence setting, which although not a justification in notability itself, just factor in to what new pages are edited and created. I think it is worth debating whether all of the 1000s of secondary pages branched off from universities are notable, but they all have to be looked at even and within the context of their overall organization within the topic as well.cp101p (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You were right about the tags first. I've used the primary sources tag, as the expand tag can sometimes be construed as an invitation to fill it with any junk by those unfamiliar with the project. I was brought to this article while I was on RC patrol. Someone created a 'School' page for Pitt with the rationale that others had one. I think the same logic should be applied here as to television episodes. That is, notability is not inherited. I wouldn't dream of creating a page for the 'School' in which I work, although I could probably do some digging and cite the £1000s of research funding... The JPStalk to me 19:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree with you that there should not be special preference given to universities or schools so that they somehow are above the need for 3rd party references to justify notability. Certainly, anyone could come up with their own "school", for instance, maybe something like "The Xxx School of Small Appliance Repair". This is where notability becomes an major issue and these pages are probably more attune to self promotion and are very problematic. Probably anyone associated with accredited or research academic settings would consider Colleges or Schools within (at least the major) universities to be notable. While this is certainly open for wider debate, there are literally 100s of precedents on Wikipedia for this being the case. In fact, many schools have pages for every obscure football or tidily wink coach dating back to 1869. Certainly, I don't mean to be attacking those pages here, but the point is it is the context pages are presented in, along with how those pages are organized within the scope of an overall topic, i.e. University or College, is very important. For instance, there are pages that exist for every way-station on a particular metro line. Are these in themselves notable? No, but within the context of the overall presentation of material for a particular metro system they make sense for the completeness the thoroughness of the information. They certainly pass the no new original-research and no self-promotion tests, but again, their organization within the overall topic is key. I think there is a larger issue here, which is primarily the creation of "page-holder" or stub pages without adequate timely follow-up. It appears to me that many pages are created with insufficient content with the intention of encouraging future development of that topic by others. Problems occur when editors, like myself, only have access to internet resources, and not primary (hardcopy) resources more likely to be found in closer to the physical location of the topic (e.g. local libraries) when trying to follow up on these pages. Another problem comes from deleting the "skeletal" articles due to insufficient resources because many of them have taken the use of the most appropriate Wikipeida titles for their topic and if someone does come along later with an interest in creating an adequately researched page, they'll get the previous deletion notification. Plus, there is the issue of precedence setting, which although not a justification in notability itself, just factor in to what new pages are edited and created. I think it is worth debating whether all of the 1000s of secondary pages branched off from universities are notable, but they all have to be looked at even and within the context of their overall organization within the topic as well.cp101p (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This article could definitely use editing, but it is definitely deserving of its own article. As stated above, major research divisions and colleges within universities commonly have their own wiki article, primarily because offer such extensive information on the main university page would be exhaustive and non-topical. The Graduate School of Public Health at Pitt is one of the top 10 schools of its kind in the country (according to USNews), and its functions, research, and structure should be further explored in an independent article. - --PenelopePgh (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another point: What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Columbia, Cornell, and all of the rest of the Ivy League Schools can have pages on everything under the sun, then the Major Research Universities with multiple billion endowments should also be extended this same precident. Just my honest opinon. Jccort (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —150.212.41.61 (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Tag it with unreferenced/expand tags, but there's no need to AFD this article. It is clearly notable and clearly verifiable sources can be found with a simple 2 second google. Silliness.--150.212.41.61 (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the responsibility of editors to indicate notability. The JPStalk to me 17:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This article helps many people understand the strong history of this school. With all of the updated references, I don't understand why the deletion policy box is still on the page. JPS, I understand exactly what you are saying about adding references. I think that this discussion shows how important references are. I just think an expand tag would have been a better choice. Thanks! DiscoStu412 (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2008 (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.