Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glass plate university

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 05:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Glass plate university
At best this is a neologism; at worst totally original research. A search on Google shows this phrase being used a number of times - unfortunately these are all occasions where the article is either linking to or drawing text from this Wikipedia article or the research for the article seems to have come from reading Wikipedia. The term is not afik in common usage in the UK. We should not be in the businesws of creating new phrases, terms or taxonomies as of principle. 62.253.64.15 21:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * In the light of the references found by Splash below I'm changing my vote to *Keep. Sorry to have caused a fuss but I douldn't find any references myself. Guess I got it wrong on this one. 62.253.64.15 11:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, an article having a title which might be bad is not a reason for destroying someone's hard work - these unis became because of the Robbins Report and they deserve to be grouped together. Take it to talk:Glass plate university, not VFD.  Anons should log in. Dunc|&#9786; 21:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Except it's a categoriosation which does not exist. Are you saying that we should abandon the policy on "no original research" just because the person worked hard? That quite specifically is NOT what the policy says. 62.253.64.15 22:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Absolutely keep. This is a term in the UK, where I am at University (though a redbrick). There are not many Unis that fall into this categorization but it is no less valid for it. Producing a reference for it appears to be rather hard; so you can believe me or not as you choose. -Splash 02:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I want to believe you, but articles must be verifiable. This article absolutely needs a reference.  If the phrase is really used surely it must appear in a newspaper or magazine that can be used as a source. Quale 04:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I know. I've been rather distracted from my search today. I have managed to find some usages of the term however. There is this from what appears to be a news-sourcey sort of thing. About halfway down it refers to the plate-glass universities. There's also this from what I think is an editorial-sort-of-thing. It also refers to plate-glass unis rather than glass plate. Ah, better is a published conference paper using the plate-glass term. It's not really a reference, but I did find this from Sheffield University which uses "glass plate" and "Robbins Report" in the couple of sentences; not a direct reference I know. Given all this, I think perhaps a move to plate-glass university might be in order. (My Google search was "Robbins Report" glass plate &mdash; but beware the Wikimirrors. There may also be other references among the results; I figured three refs was enough, especially including a conference paper.) -Splash 00:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Splash. -- BD2412 talk 23:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of amazed that I see lots of "keeps" and not one piece of evidence that this doesn't breach the "no original research" policy. Dont we care about wikipedia policy? 62.253.64.14 23:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment above.


 * Keep, though move to "Plate-glass university" as that does appear to be the common usage. I think it is in general use in the UK, (though not universal use - it's a fairly esoteric subject area) - see the citations above; in anecdotal addition, someone entirely unrelated to this discussion used "plate-glass universities" in an email to a mailing list I'm on this morning, which looks like general use to me :-) TSP 11:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Splash's research. Article should be moved to "Plate-glass uni" as glass-plate makes no sense as was noted on the article's talk page some months ago.  Article needs a reference on it and will need to be careful to not make original research claims -- Splash's references show that the term is used, but they don't provide a good definition of it. Quale 07:38, 17 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.