Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Suggest this article should be deleted. The actual empirical majority of the content is about its closure which was now over 8 years ago. The rest of the article references some rather niche academics at a rather middling UK University. The vast majority of UK University Sub-Departments don't have their own wiki page. Why should this? Jstriker (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Once notable, always notable. Closed research centres are as notable as ones that are still open. And "considerable attention in the national press" establishes notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The attention in the national press you refer to was only as a result of the closure of the school. It seems in this case that the controvery over the department's closure was more notable than the department itself ever was. Jstriker (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * actually if you go back and look in newspaper indexes, not just google news archives, you'll find that this place had plenty of newspaper coverage while it was open too. newspapers, books, academic journals, just tons of material, it's quite famous. --Buridan (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.
 * Keep Notable institution in the formation of a field of study. See for example the chapter entitled "The Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies" by Michael Green in "Rereading English" by Peter Widdowson (Routledge, 2002) (the sort of link that Google Scholar can provide) which begins "Though cultural studies was substantially pioneered at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham University, these notes attempt neither a history of significant intellectual developments there..." Ths is notability. AllyD (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand the rules for notability of organisations, the sources must be "independent of the subject". The book you refer to does not seem to be independent of the subject - Michael Green used to be the Director of this particular institution. Jstriker (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your point: the book cited was edited by Peter Widdowson (obituary: ) and published by Routledge, a respected academic publisher? AllyD (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly the independence wikipedia strives for in its secondary sources for notability is it - the auteur of the article you reference was also closely tied to the institution in question to the extent that he rose to the rank of Director there. The appeal to authority of mentioning the publisher's kudos is weak in this instance - analogy: a nationally syndicated journalist writes a book and then reviews it himself in a newspaper. Just because that newspaper is nationally syndicated does not make the source notable due to "non independence from the subject". It is the auteur who matters and wikipedia regulations state the source must be independent of the subject. If the institution is notable, surely there are better secondary sources than this - perhaps by notable academics from other fields? Jstriker (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * More broadly, I do recommend that | Google Scholar search. Taking a few citations about the CCCS: "earned an international reputation for its empirical research and innovatory theory" (Off-centre: Feminism and cultural studies); "in the works of the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, has recently had a significant and influential impact in the United States" (History, politics and postmodernism: Stuart Hall and cultural studies); "the project of cultural studies which was developed by the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies" (Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Identity, and Politics between the Modern and the Postmodern). AllyD (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Stuart Hall founded this institution so again, this example doesn't seem to adhere to wiki policy regarding "independence from the subject". Jstriker (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The 3 books I cited are not by Stuart Hall but respectively by Franklin-Lurey-Stacy, Lawrence Grossberg (who did study at the CCCS, I note) and Douglas Kellner (who didn't as far as I know). AllyD (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that the academics you list, where they don't have a direct connection to this institution, all come from the quite narrow subject area of cultural studies and as such are of doubtful value in establishing the notability of this institution beyond, as I mention initially, a very small niche band of academics due to their non-independence from the subject matter at hand. Surely, if this institution was truly notable it would have been recognised outside of this select group who seem to have formed circuitous references? For example, compare as a "blue-ribbon" standard, the well referenced notability of the Max Planck Institute. Jstriker (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another specific discussion, this time in the lead para of this article from Washington State Uni: . AllyD (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete. Are we supposed to have articles about all defunct departments? Also, the article itself reads like an advertisement...--MagisterMilitum (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Sociology notified.  AllyD (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep For now keep the article. I think that there is enough coverage to let the article remain for now to see if other information can be found in off line sources. At a later date, if nothing else shows up then perhaps a merge discussion can happen. But for now keep. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The only notable thing about this institution seems to be the fact it was closed. --81.153.231.175 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed. Notability seems to stem from its closure. 188.221.202.217 (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep whole issues of academic journals written about this place, yes this specific center.... probably upwards of 200 newspaper articles over its history...  notable, yes... one of the founding locations of the field of cultural studies.  in terms of sociology/culturalstudies/philosophy/history this place, with a proper article should be an A level article.  I just needs improved.  A bit of simple research by its nominator would have prevented this nomination. --Buridan (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm incredulous that Wikipedia would even consider deleting this page; CCCS was a pioneering research centre, the touchstone for a whole generation of cultural-studies scholars. There's much more to be said about the Centre than this page covers, but that's a reason to expand, not delete. Are the voices for deletion conversant with Cultural Studies, and I've just missed a development that rendered this Centre unimportant? --Akma (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been repeatedly pointed out the centre seems to be more notable for its closure than anything else. I am conversant with "Cultural Studies" and have pointed out above that circuitous references between a small group of niche academics, many of whom were linked to this institution in someway does not make such sources "independent of the subject". Rgds. Jstriker (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of references available, the page needs improved. As for your 'related', here I think you might be extending a bit far.  In any case, this is notable beyond all requirements.--Buridan (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly claiming that the centre "seems to be more notable for its closure than anything else" doesn't make it true, Jstriker (or perhaps, makes it true only to you); the Centre was a catalyst for the genesis and flourishing of an entire academic movement. Are you suggesting that only institutions of the broad significance of the Max Planck Institute (a centre with a longer history and wider span of subject areas) merit Wikipedia pages? What's the benefit to Wikipedia in eliminating this page?--Akma (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Going on the basis of the notability of the sources I could find it's true. I've never seen any sources in the mainstream press referencing this centre which weren't related to its closure for example. As I said it seems to only be notable among a niche group of academics. I think its importance has been blown out of all proportion here. How many University sub-Departments - not faculties, not Departments, but a level lower than even that, have their own wiki page? Especially defunct ones. I think the most pertinent colloquialism here is "superhero in their own lunchbox". The only sources provided to establish notability other than for closure are webpages which no longer exist. The only references brought up in this discussion have not been independent from the subject at hand, due to either direct links to the institution itself or the very niche subject itself. The genesis for this "movement" was The Frankfurt School in any event. Jstriker (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I echo the comments of Buridan and Akma - this was a very significant group in its day and there are numerous references to the centre in many frequently-read academic texts. Davidbrake (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment I think that Jstriker's claim that publications by people in the relevant academic field shouldn't count towards notability is dreadful. This is like saying that publications by cardiologists shouldn't count for determining whether a heart disease or a heart transplant program is notable.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think equating "Cultural" Studies to medical science is dreadful. Jstriker (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2010 (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.