Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affirmative action at the University of Michigan


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Affirmative action at the University of Michigan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Orphan article, just a few random cherry picked incidents. No other university has its own "affirmative action" subpage, which has me convinced that this is some kind of point-making exercise. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Ten Pound Hammer. I think there should be consistency across university article subpages. Maybe there is some reference source which rates how well colleges/universities uphold their affirmative action obligations and this could be cited in the university articles themselves if they substantially deviate from the norm. Knox490 (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't find part of this argument to be at all compelling: no other university has its own affirmative action article so this shouldn't. It's WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. There may well be a case to be made against this article, but I'm not going to support deletion based on "consistency across university article subpages." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with . The reason we don't have similar articles is because we don't have thoughtful editors like  coming here to make them, but we chase good editors off.  There is going to be plenty of WP:RS for other universities--certainly for U.C. Berkeley, e.g. San Jose Mercury News, Washington Post, Atlantic, most of the RS of California_Proposition_209.  Shalor:  you might find useful information in those articles--not sure.  --David Tornheim (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I just wanted to drop a note that this is part of a school assignment, so if this is deleted and the teacher needs it for grading, can this be returned to the userspace? Also, is it possible that this could be merged into its own subsection in the main article for the school? It's mentioned there, but there's enough here to where this could probably justify its own subsection at least. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work. Sorry to see your hard work treated this way.  --David Tornheim (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I have expressed concerns about the nominator's behaviour and grasp of policy at Afds past -- but I won't revisit them here. We shall see what we shall see: the matter is far from settled. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I see enough WP:RS. Appears to be well researched.   --David Tornheim (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I could find plenty of sources on any random topic. Just because you find several instances of something happening, does not mean that the "happening" is notable. This is just randomly cherry picked. It's an example farm. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how that is relevant to the application of our notability requirement here. If the subject has multiple independent secondary sources, then it generally meets our notability standard.  Are you suggesting we change that standard?  If so, probably better to raise that at WP:GNG rather than here.  If you believe it does not meet the notability standards, please state exactly how it fails, rather than make up your own standard.  --David Tornheim (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Grutter v. Bollinger, Gratz v. Bollinger and Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action are notable cases that have had articles on them for some time. The article creator has incorporated them into a referenced article that discusses the school's history with affirmative action within a larger context, particularly the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which bans affirmative action in the state. The clash between affirmative action at one of the country's leading universities and the state measure's prohibition of same is vitally important, notable, and referenced. So this is not a "random topic" being explored. Something socially and historically important is happening in Michigan and it's right and proper to have an article on it, if it meets WP:N + V, which it does. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep It is notable per WP:GNG - UMichigan's affirmative action program is covered extensively in secondary sources because of the legal history. These cases are major landmark United States Supreme Court cases. They are referred to as The Michigan Affirmative Action Cases in peer reviewed journals. It is hard to overstate the importance of Grutter and Gratz - I ran a search for Grutter in HeinOnline and got 6,059 hits. I think it may seem random for those who aren't familiar with American constitutional law but Grutter is not cherry picking, establishing diversity as a compelling interest in affirmative action cases was huge Seraphim System  ( talk ) 01:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete If anything maybe a mention in the University of Michigan article as to affirmative action at UM- but doesn't warrant having it's own subpage. Cllgbksr (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I had essentially the same thought as Seraphim--even if most schools' affirmative action programs don't warrant articles, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have pages for the ones that have attracted such significant legal action and secondary source commentary. One could easily make a very worthwhile encyclopedia page for the University of Texas's affirmative action program, along the same lines. Passes GNG and the spirit behind it at WP:WHYN: we have plenty of sources to write a substantial, balanced encyclopedia entry. (It shouldn't need saying but keep in mind too that notability inheres in the topic, not the entry: if we even began to list all the journal articles relevant to this entry, we'd truly drown in citations. Whether or not they've yet been added to the entry doesn't bear on AfD.) Innisfree987 (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2017 (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.