Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cumberland Law School's Center for Biotechnology, Law and Ethics


 * 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. But I'm going to just redirect instead; no harm in the redirect itself, and no harm in allowing people to work on more merging to the Cumberland School of Law page, although it does already talk about the center in what I think is approximately appropriate detail. Mango juice talk 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cumberland Law School's Center for Biotechnology, Law and Ethics

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable academic center at university; most of article is trivialities, what is notable could be easily merged with the law school's article. Brianyoumans 16:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep Editing, rather than deletion would solve the "trivia" issue. Also the above comments are conclusory statements that are not supported by any reasons or facts. The center is notable according to Wikipedia standards for several reasons that are easily verifiable: 1) its academic production in law journals easily exceeds the recognition required by Wikipedia, 2) the center is unique in the U.S., particularly amongst law schools for its emphasis on researching methodology 3) in approximately 5 years the center has effectively attracted a numerous experts in a variety of fields to write upon and meet about national issues, 4) it is not an academic center, it is a research center, therefore its sphere of influence will generally be limited to the academic and research community. Sweetmoose6
 * In general, academic or research centers associated with universities are covered in the main article, unless they have significant notability on their own. This center is less than 4 years old. There is a list of graduates, but none of them have their own Wikipedia articles or indeed any information on their notability. No associated faculty is mentioned other than Smolin, the director, who has his own article. The accomplishments of the center seem to consist of holding a series of conferences, and I don't think that good claims of notability are made for the conferences. I don't see any claims that the center has been influential - had its curriculum copied by other institutions, produced scholars who have started similar programs, etc - and indeed it would be surprising if such a new program was influential. Brianyoumans 17:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep but aggressively edit, especially section 2 onwards - these symposiums (symposia?) can be summarised very briefly without giving full details, and we really don't need the lists of individuals or of courses unless there is anything remarkable about them. Alternatively, merge into Cumberland School of Law per suggestion of Brianyoumans. Barnabypage 17:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The notability has little to do with the conferences but rather with the volume and quality of scholarship produced by the Center. The reason it is notable is because there has been a lot of it and hardly anyone is doing it.  If the conference information reflected that then maybe there could be a compromise here. Sweetmoose6 17:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is always difficult for one not in the field to measure an organization or individual's prominence within it. However it is notable that there is no mention of this Center in the National Institute of Health's listing of bioethics resources, including their list of academic centers and educational sites. The Georgetown University law library has a short listing of bioethics research centers; this center is not one of them. The Hastings Center, which seems to be rather prominent in the field, has a more extensive list of links, but Cumberland is still not included. The University of Pittsburgh has a rather extensive list of bioethics resources, but does not list Cumberland anywhere that I can see. Etc. In fact, searching on "Cumberland Law School" and "biotechnology" gives you around 80 unique Google hits, most of them directory entries, Wikipedia mirrors, and mentions in the CVs of presenters at the conferences. By random comparison, "Cleveland State University" and "bioethics" gives you over 18000 ghits, 576 unique. Brianyoumans 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: The center studies the ethical and legal implications of biotechnology, not just a broad application of bioethics like all of these other places you mention. That is, in part, what makes the Center unique because it is devoted to biotechnology research and not general bioethics, which could mean just about anything.  I also think 80 unique google hits is more than enough to satisfy Wiki notability, but it seems obvious that a state school would have many more hits related to bioethics than a law school would.  Cleveland has about 10,000 undergraduates and the Cumberland has about 500 students. Sweetmoose6 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And because CLS's Center consists of one faculty member and his students, and the Cleveland State center has 5 faculty? And I don't think it is particularly notable for a bioethics program; it isn't mentioned in the Cleveland State University article, for instance. Brianyoumans 22:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The point wasn't about the size of the center but that the terms of the search were much more likely to produce innumberable random references. Sweetmoose6 22:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And my understanding is that the question is whether this Center is notable by Wikipedia's own standards and not how notable it is in comparison with something else, however closely related. Sweetmoose6 23:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The only way this you seem to allege that this falls into questionable notability is under Wikipedia's "Significant coverage." You noted at least 80 independent websites in a google search. Isn't this enough? And this also reaches only purely online resources. What about off-line journal citations? Sweetmoose6 02:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are presently no secondary sources concerning the Center listed in the article, except for two articles in the college newspaper (Cumberland Law School being part of Samford University). There may be 80 unique google hits for "Cumberland Law School" and "biotechnology", but as I pointed out, the quality of the pages is very poor - 5 of the first 10 listings are either Wikipedia or mirrors of Wikipedia, for instance. Many of the listings which are not Wiki mirrors or directory listings are in fact pages where "Cumberland Law School" and "biotechnology" simply happen to occur in the same page, and are not references to the Center. I was not able to find ANY news articles or even blogs that discussed the Center or its work, even briefly. Brianyoumans 03:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because they are not in the article does not mean that they do not exist at all. As for news articles, many newspapers do not keep articles online because of natural limitations, and articles are only available in print.

I'm also not certain a biotechnology research center would be a highly referenced source in your typical "blog." I'm not sure the "blog" audience is the targeted audience here.Sweetmoose6 04:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC) 1/N is claimed merely on account of "only one of its kind in the United States, focusing on the ethics and legal implications of biotechnology, rather than an emphasis on general bioethics. " which is really straining after a distinction. 2/It consists of an "office and library at the law school. Two fellows, and several assistant researchers serve for one year terms." (see #4--they are just law students, not distinguished scholars) 3/ It makes a big deal out of its speakers at the conferences but " Center for Biotechnology, Law, and Ethics, Cumberland Law School, Samford University, the Cumberland Law Review, and Cumberland Law School's Chapter of the Black Law Students Association (BLSA)'--various parts of the same university. Later ones had additionally U Alabama Birmingham. 4/to make up enough content for an article, it reprints the program for the conferences and the name of the individual law students who were the fellows. 5/ their notable scholarly output is published only in their own journal. 6/A consistent pattern of very distinguished speakers makes for notability . One or 2 a year for 5 years doesn't quite qualify. The only one always present is the director. He's listed once or twice each year  DGG 04:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC) 
 * Delete on the basis of the information in the article--
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 09:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, `'юзырь:mikka 18:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Sweetmoose6]]17:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No evidence has been produced that it is a/notable by the standards of anyone not at the School, b/ has a particularly high production ain terms of either quantity or quality c/has published anything at all of particular notability or held a single separately notable conference. This is a mere attempt to get a second article for a throughly undistinguished law school. This sort of article is what merge is for. DGG 01:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * While these are fine opinions, I don't see any reference to Wikipedia's standards in them at all. I think it has been established by the critical evidence offered that this center fits with Wikipedia's standard for notability if not maybe individual user's personal standards.  This is a purely technical issue about standards.  If the article needs editing that is a different matter. User:Sweetmoose617:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * quote: Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"... smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.
 * notability means having attracted notice, and we usually ask for it to be more than local. That larger organizations will attract more notice is part of the nature of things, not bias. In general, separate research units are kept only for the most important organizations in the most important universities, for the others are--well, just not noticed all that much except on their own campus. DGG 21:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge a small portion into Cumberland School of Law. Samford University is notable; the law school is notable; sub-units of the law school are not notable. If it was an arm of Harvard or Yale law schools or something, maybe; but Samford U and Cumberland are relatively obscure entities. The entity has two fellows, which I guess means it has two employees, basically. I've never heard of the any of the people who have spoken there, which may say more about me than about the article, but it's not like they're getting UN General Secretaries and so forth. There is a limit and this is under it. Herostratus 20:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there are multiple secondary and tertiary sources to establish the notability. ( [ →] zel zany  - fish) 00:31, 17 June 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.