Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognate advisor


 * 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. Still without a source. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Cognate advisor

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Completely without a source (other than some evidence that the term is used at those universities), little evidence that the term is not used for other concepts, and (if sourced) should be a section of doctoral advisor. (I can't decide whether the category should be S or T, so I'm specifically marking it as U (unsure).) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * keep How can something be "completely without a source" and at the same time a term used at "those universities". How many universities' websites have to use this term before it is sourced? If necessary, ask for whatever arbitrary number tickles your fancy (10, 20, 30) and I'll supply them. Heres some of many more examples not mentioned: College of Charleston, University of Michigan , Kent State University , Indiana University , etc. etc. etc. etc. When this student explains in her dissertation she had a conversation with her cognate advisor , what she talking about?Edstat (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When a student explains in her dissertation she had a conversation with her cognate advisor, who knows what it means. In the first link on google scholar search, the cognate advisor didn't know.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't follow you. The first link of the google search that I see is the reference to wikipedia. Which link are you referring to? The point is, there are many universitys that differentiate between an advisor and a cognate advisor, each having forms and signatures required. There is a disseration of a student mentioned speaking with her cognate advisor, etc. Yet, you insist that such a thing doens't exist...So again, how many links to university web pages do you require. (BTW, many of these web pages define who is the cognate advisor).Edstat (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The first link in scholar.google.com is to http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send-pdf.cgi/Farrell%20Annemarie.pdf?osu1147982213, which is the one I was referring to. However, you've almost proved my point.  If Wikipedia is the first link in google search, that's indication that the term isn't used on the web.  Now, it may be used in other contexts, but that fact does provide evidence that the term may not actually be used in the real world.
 * If there were a definition of the term not restricted to a specific academic institution, I would be more inclined to believe that the term really does have a standard meaning, or that the concept was in wide use. I agree that you didn't invent the term, so it's not precisely WP:OR, but you haven't provided evidence that the term really means what you say it does.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I found your link - under Google Scholar. Did you read the continuation, as would be required for good faith reporting? After the student told the faculty member what is a cognate advisor, the faculty member agreed! This only meant that faculty member had never served in that capacity, although her university had that role designated on the doctoral committee. Plus, under Google Scholar there are about 10 more references, and under Google Web about 80 more (e.g. U of New Hampshire ) Here is a citation in a book:.
 * OK, so if I understand you now, you want me to expand the article by quoting definitions from the various web pages? Wouldn't that had been better stated on the discussion page, instead of (a) trying to merge it or (b) trying to delete it?
 * In any case, I'll cut and paste definitons from the many web sites and put it into the articleEdstat (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I found it, but I got "edit conflict"ed while you were giving the link. And sorry, being first on wikipedia only means google's algorithm searches wikipedia first. It doesn't prove your point, either the original one, or the one you are now advancing. I'm sure you know if you google George Washington, Tea Party, Russia, etc., they come up first on google.Edstat (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What I was looking for is a reference which suggest the term is in general use, rather than being used it the specific academic institution(s). For a specific institution, it's a WP:PRIMARY (and probably WP:SPS) source, and we prefer to use WP:SECONDARY reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, here is another "specific use": University of Cincinatti, where even their piano program has a cognate advisor! Your argument seems to be that because dozens of university's use the term, that is WP:Primary?Edstat (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And U of Tennessee Knoxvile Edstat (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Duquesne Univeristy Edstat (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Kettering
 * U of Denver .Edstat (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Andrews University
 * WP:CHERRY? I don't think you're doing it intentionally, but there is no way for an objective observer to be sure whether your selections happen to have the same meaning because your search criteria select for that meaning, rather than it being a common usage.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I hear you. So it is as I said above, you want me to cut and paste from some of them and put it into the article. If someone can find that there are multiple meanings, they can edit to so indicate. Edstat (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But as for Cherry picking, your allegations are now all over the board, is there any WP policy that I haven't violated. Intentional or not, which reference exists that you are aware of that I have failed to cite?Edstat (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's basically the point. Restating, the fact that institutions 1-15 use the term, doesn't mean that it's commonly used.  All of your references that I've checked state only the definition (or sometimes, only use) at that institution.  If all the definitions are essentially the same, that would provide support for the assertion that it's a common use, but a general definition, even from a tertiary source, would be preferred.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I just remembered I predicted when I was asked on another page to create this stub this would happen (i.e., it wouldn't last) as discussed here.

You still haven't provided evidence that the term is generally used, only that it's used at those institutions (and not necessarily with the same meaning.) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood, I'm on a wiki-break from editing for a while.Edstat (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Still" refers to "since the creation of the article", and "you" should refer to "Wikipedia editors". No offense intended.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.