Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic scandal


 * 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 delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Academic scandal

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:COATRACK, POV fork, and unsourced list in violation of WP:BLP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Definitely a coatrack and a POV fork, no sources.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 23:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * delete this is a fairly arbitrary collection of events. It's not an article, it's a list. I can see some rationale to the list, but why are "Academic experiments with ethical issues" in here?  I can't see Stanford Prison Experiment really being an "academic scandal" (and while there perhaps ought to be a category containing it and Milgram experiment, and I suppose Little Albert and the The Monster Study too).  As for unsourced list in violation of BLP, I think Scientific misconduct qualifies there too.  I see we have Category:Scientific misconduct, I suppose a category for a broader "academic misconduct", is equally defensible.  OTOH Many cases that are worth discussing in this context will be false accusations, or unfounded allegations, and I don't see how a category can include such cases without inferring actual misconduct.  In that case only a proper, sourced, article can cover the topic.  One can be writen, but this is not it.  Recommend deletion of this list, and the list Scientific misconduct, if the cases cannot be discussed (and sourced) they ought not to be mentioned. Pete.Hurd 01:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this sort of article is a indiscriminate selection of miscellaneous events, most but not necessarily all of them of them notable. This sort of summary list is inherently selective and unfair--and in fact one or two of the items seem to be altogether unfair; it is not the way to go, and raises major BLP and NPOV concerns. I agree with what Pete said just above.  There are other lists of this sort in WP, where complex issues are summarized in a sentence, and I'd like to see them all removed. This is a good place to start.    DGG (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons given above. The definition of what constitutes a scandal is inherently arbitrary and POV.  Perfectly good articles already exist for scientific misconduct and academic dishonesty, which are more clearly-defined subjects and cover most, if not all, of what could be called academic scandals. Cosmo0 20:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and also as violating WP:LIST. I am somewhat suspicious that only one scandal was cited,'' a possible coatrack problem. Bearian 14:59, 10 October 2007 (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.