Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic job market


 * 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. Firstly, the article isn't advertising. Other delete !votes are generally around whether this article has room to grow. I think the added article in the bibliography indicates that it is very likely that there are many sources about this topic; academics love to study themselves and governments like to study other countries' systems. Ged UK  13:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Academic job market

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A non-notable list of external websites. Feels like advertising, but I can't tell for which EL.  7   talk   00:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete' Very thinly veiled advertising —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotovia (talk • contribs) 01:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think this is meant as advertising at all. It's just too vague a topic for an entry and it reads like a directory. Poor bastards are having a tough time this year. Hairhorn (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As the academic job market is indeed different from on "ordinary" job search in many countries this is a viable topic. The German Wikipedia for example has an article on this topic, detailing the situation in Germany . Stepopen (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As it stands, it violates WP:NOT because it's basically a directory listing. If it were expanded into an actual article about the academic job market, then keep. Gigs (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete If it's spammy that could probably be fixed through editing. So my question is whether this is an encyclopedic topic that just happens to have a bad article at the moment, and should be kept. I think there might be some notability in the overall issue of job availability for "academics", but it would vary so much from country to country and time-period that a general article on it seems less useful than covering it in specific articles like Professors in the United States for example. And that article does cover this topic albeit briefly. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but when we have a situation that varies from country to country, we like to have an overview article arranged by country as well as specific articles on each country: Legal systems of the world, Islam by country - a tabular overview of international situations is a well-established form of Wikipedia article. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the article is WP:NOTDIR, and is not a well referenced article with third party sources on the subject. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - obviously since I started it. First, it is certainly not advertising - I have nothing to advertise here. Secondly, the fact that an article is not referenced the day it is created is not a reason to delete it - these things need time to grow. I see someone has added a book title already, and there are plenty of others. Third, this is a topic which can be encyclopedic - the article Academia already reflects debate on the nature of the academic job market, and shows that there is literature on the topic, and hence scope. There are also big ethical issues which could be looked at here - equal opportunities, nepotism in many European countries, etc. Another user has already added a to-do list on the article's talk-page setting out questions to be pursued. So some very interesting things could be put in here and I'm clearly not the only one wanting to do it. Fourth, it was not the intention that this should be a list of websites, so much as a country-by-country discussion, though of course some of these will refer to websites. But most importantly, I am asking you to keep this because we desperately need it. People looking for information on the international situation simply can't find it at the moment. There is no website which looks beyond one country. The information I have included took quite some time to find. If other people can expand it, it will be a tremendously valuable resource. PLEASE don't block that for reasons which sound more bureaucratic than anything else - those might be reasons for discussing the from we present the information, but not for saying we can't present it. If Wikipedia can't be used to make practical information available to people who are desperate for it, then there's something wrong with our mission statement. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletion would not block the ability for you to recreate the article in a substantially different format. Gigs (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought deletion implied a ban on recreating the article? Why don't you help me modify this article instead? --Doric Loon (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You may not recreate the article if you do not address the problems that lead to it being deleted. I.e. you may not recreate it with substantially the same content.  After deletion, you can ask for the article to be moved into your user space as a temporary holding place.  You can there improve it, and then move it back into the main article space once it's suitable for inclusion. As it is a topic I know absolutely nothing about, I may not be the best person to help you edit it.  The people at WikiProject_Education can probably help.  Gigs (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's useful. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Doric Loon has asked me to reconsider my delete vote. I'm not going to strike anything out, but I will clarify that I think this in an article that could be saved. It needs less directory and a more general introduction (what so different about the academic market?) This is a subject I follow closely; it has lots of potential, particularly this year. The entry just needs to be something more than it is currently. Hairhorn (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete or redirect to job market. Yes we know there are lots of job markets, but we don't need an article on every non-notable submarket. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Given that there are articles in multiple magazines every week on this, and that the institution of tenure makes this market totally unique (tenure in the US, and with similar status in many other countries) there is certainly the basis for an article. It's not a matter of providing practical material, its a matter of there being serious dicussion and multiple studies of it. CoM is however right that similar articles in other industries might be justified as well. This is a good one to start, as academics do tend to study themselves. DGG (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2009 (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.