Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Boumerdès
- 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
University of Boumerdès[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- University of Boumerdès (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I had added a PROD to this due to it's apparent lack of notability. Which was removed because "doing anything to university articles is controversial" or something. So, now I'm doing an AfD for it. What it comes down to for me is that this lacks multiple in-depth reliable sources about it, at least I was unable to find any when I looked for them, and universities are not inherently notable. With the current sourcing, one reference is primary and the other is extremely trivial. So, the article doesn't pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The topic is a public university in Algeria. It passes GNG with news items such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and [1]. Mccapra (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:NSCHOOL and more specifically WP:UNIGUIDE which begins
In general, all colleges and universities are de facto notable and should be included on Wikipedia.
Additionally sources in foreign language exist and Mccapra has found several to show that this article is verifiable and WP:N. Lightburst (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Did you bother to look at the sources provided by Mccapra? They are extremely trivial and not in-depth. Also, the sentence you cited says "in general", as in usually. Which isn't "always." So universities aren't de-facto notable. In fact more then a few have been deleted at AfD because they weren't notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: Mccapra's sources are good-quality articles about the university; they're enough to establish notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Really? Which ones are "good-quality articles about the university" exactly? Would you call the the third one that's a essentially a long winded diatribe by the president of the university on fermentation a "good quality" article that's about "the university"? Or how about the forth source that's an extremely short paragraph about how the president left? How is that "good-quality" exactly? Or maybe your talking about the six source that's about 3 fisherman getting kidnaped and has absolutely nothing to do with the university? It's almost like you didn't even bother to look at the sources before you voted. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think that "A new incubator for technologies at the University of Boumerdes" is particularly good; it's an article about progress that the university is making. I think that "The strike of Boumerdes University students continues" is also good; it's a news event that's specific to the university. I apologize if my comment made you angry. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's fine. Since you said "sources" I assumed you meant all of them. Anyway, I don't think you care if you made me angry or not. Nor is it likely that you even think your comment did make me angry. Mostly, it's just more of the usual goading that you seem incapable of keeping in check for some reason. That said, it does get a little time consuming and disruptive/unfair to the process if people post "bad" sources that have to be called out and if people vote keep (or even delete) based on them. That's all. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think that "A new incubator for technologies at the University of Boumerdes" is particularly good; it's an article about progress that the university is making. I think that "The strike of Boumerdes University students continues" is also good; it's a news event that's specific to the university. I apologize if my comment made you angry. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Really? Which ones are "good-quality articles about the university" exactly? Would you call the the third one that's a essentially a long winded diatribe by the president of the university on fermentation a "good quality" article that's about "the university"? Or how about the forth source that's an extremely short paragraph about how the president left? How is that "good-quality" exactly? Or maybe your talking about the six source that's about 3 fisherman getting kidnaped and has absolutely nothing to do with the university? It's almost like you didn't even bother to look at the sources before you voted. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep I would like for someone to incorporate those identified sources into the article. With universities as long as we have evidence that they are real institutions engaged in actual education and not just diploma mills we will keep them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't think sources about the chemistry of alcohol and three fisherman getting kidnapped should go in the article if it's kept. It's not about the fermentation process or Palestinian fishermen. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- But the source that I added to the article before you even started the discussion, this from Times Higher Education, is neither primary nor extremely trivial as you claimed the sources to be in your nomination statement. Just stop telling such lies. And of course proper, real universities are suitable subjects for encyclopedia articles. Any statement to the contrary is simply anti-intellectual dumbing-down that would lead Wikipedia to become a popular culture compendium rather than an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yikes. And supposedly I'm the one with the battle ground mentality and can't handle people disagreeing with me. Yet, your the one that's calling me a lier and saying that disagreeing with you would be "anti-intellectual dumbing-down" of Wikipedia. What a nut job, completely inconsistent way to act. Your clearly a special kind of snow flake. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Anyway, I completely stand my comment that your source is trivial. Just taking a random quote out of it proves as much "the university maintains a range of high-quality academic facilities. These include an intensive language centre, library, audio-visual centre, and a dedicated facility for distance learning and off-site study." What's not trivial about the school having academic facilities and a library? Literally every school does. Especially "academic facilities." It's literally what a school is. That kind of thing is extremely WP:MILL. The article might as well be about how they have walls, a floor, and air in the rooms. Trying to have an article about a schools walls would be is more "anti-intellectual dumbing-down" Wikipedia then anything I've done. Especially if there's no actual details. Cool they have a library, but what about it? Oh there's no other details about it? Exactly. It's just walls. That's it. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yikes. And supposedly I'm the one with the battle ground mentality and can't handle people disagreeing with me. Yet, your the one that's calling me a lier and saying that disagreeing with you would be "anti-intellectual dumbing-down" of Wikipedia. What a nut job, completely inconsistent way to act. Your clearly a special kind of snow flake. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- But the source that I added to the article before you even started the discussion, this from Times Higher Education, is neither primary nor extremely trivial as you claimed the sources to be in your nomination statement. Just stop telling such lies. And of course proper, real universities are suitable subjects for encyclopedia articles. Any statement to the contrary is simply anti-intellectual dumbing-down that would lead Wikipedia to become a popular culture compendium rather than an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't think sources about the chemistry of alcohol and three fisherman getting kidnapped should go in the article if it's kept. It's not about the fermentation process or Palestinian fishermen. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, Times Higher Education World University Rankings -- Best universities in the Arab World, and also ABOUT M'HAMED BOUGARA UNIVERSITY OF BOUMERDÈS by Times Higher Education, and also keep per WP:WORLDVIEW. Right cite (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- WP:WORLDVIEW is an essay and essays aren't valid to cite in AfDs. As they aren't policy or a guideline. Also, it doesn't matter if it's supposedly one of the best universities in the Arab World, because rankings don't work for notability and neither do "articles" related to them. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per all above. Plenty of sources. Plus we invariably keep degree-awarding institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- 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.