Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American higher education institutions with open Title IX sexual violence investigations


 * 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 No consensus. Renaming and re-organizing the article can be further discussed at its talk page. Randykitty (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

List of American higher education institutions with open Title IX sexual violence investigations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have changed my mind on the value of this list. Per WP:NEWSEVENT, I do not believe that a list of schools under investigation has "enduring historical significance." True, this is the first time the schools under investigation have been publicly named, but what about all the schools that have been investigated in the past? What about those that will be in the future? I don't think an investigation of this nature is noteworthy. If something comes of those investigations, then perhaps, but not a routine investigation by itself. The OCR investigates all types of complaints all across the country. We don't have, for example, a List of Schools with open discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin investigations, for example. This article fails the WP:10 year test. --Briancua (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC) PS - WP is not a newspaper: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." --Briancua (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * KEEP As the original author. This was agreed upon as an ideal approach both at [|WT:UNI] and in the discussion for the deletion of a similar category (see here as well). Furthermore, the article meets every condition of WP:GNG in addition to being a landmark event in the history of federal management of colleges and universities (also demonstrated in the article), but the nominator seems to have missed the extensive number of news articles that have arisen in the past year alone regarding Title IX investigations, as well as the radical shifts in college and university policies (see for example University of Oregon and Occidental College). Finally the "we don't have these other things" excuse is neither my fault, nor a good reason to delete another article -- "let's lessen diversity in the name of equally terrible coverage of diverse topics!" seems to be faulty logic. I would encourage Briancua to go create those articles instead of nominating others for deletion. I would fully support the writing of those articles.Thebrycepeake (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the nominator on this one. I don't believe that this news is significant. I don't believe this passes WP:PERSISTENCE nor WP:DIVERSE. If you get enough sources, I will change my opinion on this article, but for now, I'm voting to delete. st170etalk 18:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, st170e. I added some more links to news stories, as well as a brief paragraph about criticism to the lead - hope this helps you out (and feel free to add content to help with WP:PERS and WP:DIVERSE]].Thebrycepeake (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, if you do this, then I'll review my decision. I'll help out where I can. st170etalk 18:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Already done! Thanks in advance for contributing. Thebrycepeake (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think a list is the right approach for this topic. It merits an article and it might be appropriate to include one or more lists in that article.  But I think a better approach would be to include in that new article or in the specific college/university articles descriptions of historically significant events.  For institutions that are currently under investigation and for whom the investigation and surrounding events don't merit a detailed description in the institution's article, a brief mention of the investigation with a link to this new article would be the best approach.  Ultimately, I don't believe that lists are appropriate for ephemeral topics like "__ currently under investigation."  I might !vote differently for a list of institutions that have been found responsible/guilty of violations although I still lean strongly toward including that information in an article dedicated to this topic where the larger history and context can be presented.  This current list might also be appropriate as a part of such a new article but I haven't completely made up my mind (although I'm leaning toward "yes, it would be appropriate and helpful for readers (assuming it's kept up-to-date)"). ElKevbo (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree. I think this information, though not necessarily a list of all the schools, would be more appropriately included in an article on sexual assault on college campuses, or something along those lines.--Briancua (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe in White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, whose lead already links to this article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Except this list was released by the OCR, which is not part of the task force to protect students from sexual assault. These are two very different government entities as I understand it Thebrycepeake (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * comment Also, note that the original title did not announce "open investigations," but instead referenced the event of the release -- it was later changed by Esrever [|[1]]. Returning the original title would reflect that this is not about the list itself, but the event of announcing the list.Thebrycepeake (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes it was, but remember: Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  See GrapedApe's comment below.  Also, WP:ROUTINE "news coverage of such things as announcements... [is] not sufficient basis for an article."  The event of announcing the list does not qualify either.  --Briancua (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per comments and rationale of ElKevbo immediately above. To my way of thinking as a practicing attorney, the logic is the same as a "List of people with pending lawsuits against them" or "List of people charged, but not convicted of civil infractions."  All of this smacks of using Wikipedia to publish a list whose primary purpose is the public shaming of these institutions, regardless of the merits of the individual cases.  These are serious matters deserving of serious consideration, but context and analysis are required.  A simple list of charged/accused institutions doesn't cut it.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the nominator. These investigations happen all the time. The only difference is the government released the names of the universities. They didn't do that before. Universities would, and did, release that information at their own accord. So the only thing historic about this is the government releasing the names. Should there be an article about the government changing the policy and releasing the names? That's debatable I guess. But, the actual investigations aren't notable unless they lead to infractions. Dkspartan1 (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please provide links to when universities and colleges announced they had been under investigation. Thanks!Thebrycepeake (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Disclosure of a Title IX investigation could be made by the university, complainant and OCR. Previously, the OCR would only confirm an investigation if they were asked. As opposed to proactively disclosing the investigation. That information can be found in the sources that you provided. Check out the investigation of Harvard Law School and Yale University in 2011 as an example.Dkspartan1 (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "Previously the OCR would only confirm an investigation if they were asked. As opposed to proactively disclosing the investigation." Don't you think that makes this substantially different from "all of the other previous investigations"? Thebrycepeake (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The only thing that's different is them releasing the names, that's it. Does that change the nature of the violation they are investigating? Does that have an impact on the outcome of the investigation? I don't see how it's substantially different if it plays no role in why the school is being investigated, no role in the investigation and no role in the outcome of the investigation.Dkspartan1 (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment on my way out I just want to recap what I've seen here. As I understand it, a lot of you (not all) are upset that such a list exists, agreeing with either of the critiques at the end of the lead of the article. I respect your right to disagree with things, and would never advocate for anything to stifle your right to have an opinion. What I don't respect is the use of Wikipedia policies as a mode of censorship. You might not agree with the motivations of the OCR's list, but fact is, it was released for the first time in Title IX history. WP:N is easily established, especially given the large amount of news coverage it has received across the country -- both in support, against, and neutrally reporting. WP:PERSISTENCE? Nobody here knows if it will be important in 10 years, but none of us know if it won't be either. If it's not important in 2 years, we'll delete it then. But for now, it has sustained over 5 months of news coverage and reference in national and local media. (Side note, We have an article for GamerGate, but no one seems to have contested that) I think folks here need to step back from the controversial nature of the subject -- and your feelings about the motivations behind the release of the list) and consider it as an event that has happened whether any of us agree with it or not. The facts surrounding the matter make it quite clear it belongs in an encyclopedia that claims to want to be the most comprehensive in the world. We're here to build an encyclopedia, after all. Thebrycepeake (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete By its nature, an ephemeral list. Content more suited for WikiNews.  Also, investigation =/= violations.  Change it to something like List of American higher education institutions found to be in violation of Title IX sexual violence laws and I'd be more inclined to keep (not mere investigation; more permanent).--GrapedApe (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per GrapedApe and . Although this list is not technically a BLP, it would fall under its penumbra.  One of the sources in particular does not even link to where it came from; it could very well be falsified or a draft document. This whole thing smacks of witch hunt, wrapped into a conspiracy theory, shoved into a soap box, and sealed shut with Obama's Kenyan birth certificate. This is something more suited to World Weekly News.  When such institutions are actually found to have violated title IX, then we can have a list or an article about this topic. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Dirtlawyer is not the only attorney on wikipedia and none of us are licensed to practice in wikiland anyway, so that sort of appeal to authority is not a relevant argument. GrapedApe, Title IX is not a criminal statute, it's a civil rights statute.  The first reason to keep this list is as stated in the article, it is the "first time the federal government has announced ongoing sexual violence investigations."  That alone makes it notable and unique.  So long as it is properly sourced and maintained, it is no different than WP articles on people such as George Zimmerman, who had an article prior to his trial. Perhaps if a rename would settle some of the drama, a name could be proposed, such as Title IX sexual violence investigations at American higher education institutions.  Montanabw (talk)  21:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Never said that my opinion carried any more weight than any other editor's, Montanabw, but mine is informed by a different background than many others. Nor did I realize that I was engaged in an "appeal to authority" -- simply sharing my perspective.  That having been said, I am not the only lawyer-editor who is expressing an opinion in this matter, nor am I the only one who is expressing similar concerns.  Your mileage may vary based on your own experience.  I have read your comments in other talk page discussions, and I have found them to be quite sensible.  Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- but change from a list into an article. Having a list article that serves as a collection of ongoing investigations is rarely a good idea. However, the actual event of these investigations is a widely documented topic with massive amounts of significant coverage from reliable sourcing. It has additionally shown clear long term notability from ongoing coverage and in the context of companion articles like the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep but change to article per Yaksar and with appropriate name per Montanabw . VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename. I agree with Yaksar (and others above) that we shouldn't have a list article of ongoing investigations—it feels like recentism. However, as Yaksar said, the publication of the list has received a lot of coverage, so an article about that is appropriate. I suggest renaming the article to a title that makes clear that it is intended to be an article, not a list. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename There is a notable concept here and information here worth keeping, but my intuition is that the information worth keeping does not match the current title of the article. One option is to rename the article "Title IX sexual violence investigations", another could be "2014 List of American higher education institutions with open Title IX sexual violence investigations" so that the article can close itself just reporting the state at a point in time without having a changing list with different sourcing standards for different parts of it. I do not want the list adapted for prose format because there is no utility in making prose where the original sources being cited used a list. The news sources cited on this topic are reliable sources and this list meets WP:GNG. The further commentary in the Chronicle of Higher Education strengthens that GNG argument by presenting a perspective from a different investigative perspective than a newspaper typically would. If this article remains unchanged it at least meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I am not persuaded by arguments that this article is of no utility for describing past investigations or future investigations of the same nature; reliable sources have covered this list as an artifact of the time, and this article can stand just for this list and just at this time.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said in my nomination, I originally supported this list, but I think what I was supporting was more along the lines of an article on "Title IX sexual violence investigations," as you and others suggest.  I don't think it's wise to name the institutions being investigated for a number of reasons, but an article on the history of OCR investigations, how investigations are conducted, the fact that institutions are now named, etc, would be appropriate. --Briancua (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As I suggested in my "delete" comment above, an article that actually provides context and explanatory content would probably be an acceptable compromise. That would, of course, imply an appropriate renaming.  Suggestions, Brian?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Given 1) the stub quality of the Office for Civil Rights article, and 2) the amount of non-list prose in this article, I wonder if there would be enough right now for a separate article on sexual assault investigations. Perhaps we could add a section to the OCR article, and then break it out as needed if it gets to be too long.  --Briancua (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As the nominator, you may withdraw the AfD without prejudice to resubmit it again in 30 to 45 days ("procedural keep, without prejudice to resubmit later"), in order to give Bryce and others adequate time to create 1,000 to 2,000 words of explanatory and contextual text. I'll pledge to participate, and I'll prod the other two lawyers, Montana and Bearian, to participate.  Put the primary burden on Bryce and the "keep" editors to compose it, but I'll help to make sure that we arrive at an NPOV-compliant article with a modicum of procedural fairness to the listed institutions.  I suggest you ping the author and other AfD participants and see if they are amenable.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What say you, Thebrycepeake? Do you want to move the prose into the OCR article and then eliminate this list?  I pledge to help whipping that article into shape as well.  --Briancua (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to be an obstructuionist here Briancua, but the OCR is actually responsible for an entire portfolio of projects under the Education Amendments of 1972 (itself a stub article worth merging with OCR!). As the original article (meaning the article from the OCR) stated, this was a presidential mandate to the OCR, and while it should probably be mentioned in the OCR page, should not be collapsed into it. Having it as its own article also helps with writing about campus sexual violence on college and university pages by providing a network of pages that outline the dimensions of the issues -- in its present form and past form. I would support adding a section to the OCR page, but not the merging these two articles.Thebrycepeake (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Bryce, my proposal is to (a) immediately withdraw this AfD without prejudice to resubmit later, (b) in order to permit you, Montana, Bearian, me and others to expand and properly source the explanatory and contextual text of a real article (not just a list), and (c) in a manner that addresses the concerns raised here and elsewhere. Right now, the !vote is split 7 to 6 for deletion.  I'm not absolutely committed to a pro-deletion position, but I do want to see the issues addressed.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dirtlawyer1 Absolutely - I think we will be good working together to keep each other honest!Thebrycepeake (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok. If you think you can come up with a decent article on Title IX sexual violence investigations, I'll withdraw my nomination without prejudice.  I have two conditions, however.  First, the article should be significantly expanded or merged with OCR.  Secondly, it should address concerns listed above. Sound fair?--Briancua (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's work backwards from a hypothetical for a moment. For the sake of argument, let's say that the prose from this list and the OCR articles were currently combined in one article, and I wanted to separate them out into two.  I would run into problems with WP:SIZERULE.  The prose from the list is less than 2k, and anything under 40k does not justify splitting off into a new article.  The prose of the list has fewer than 300 words.  Meanwhile, a Stub is an article with fewer than 500 words.  While I support your goal of creating a network of articles talking about this important issue, I don't see the purpose of creating a new stub when this information could easily be combined with an existing article.  This is especially true when they would be better together than they would be apart.  Tell me, Thebrycepeake, if you support adding a section to the OCR about this topic but not merging them, what would you include and what would you exclude?  At 276 words there isn't a lot to divide, and there wouldn't be much in the WP:SUMMARY that wasn't in the forked article.  --Briancua (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I should add, Dirtlawyer1, that I am simply thinking several steps ahead. If the article was simply rennamed, without being substantially improved, then I would move to have it merged. By simply doing it now we can save ourselves what would be, I imagine, a very similar discussion. I am not ignoring your proposal. --Briancua (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn by nominator without prejudice for the reasons stated above. --Briancua (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2014 (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.