Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vice-Chancellor Salaries and Salaries of Full Time Academic Staff


 * 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, unencyclopedic - Nabla (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Vice-Chancellor Salaries and Salaries of Full Time Academic Staff

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod, reason was that this is unencyclopedic original research. Please peruse the extensive discussion between the author and others on the article's talk page. -- Finngall  talk  15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete aside from being very diverse and hard to verify/update, is it not useless information for an encyclopedia? Not all schools are notable and pay packets for individuals are the purvey of some statistical survey agency, not an encyclopedia. Pay changes each year and every school/college may have different arrangements. Vishnava (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The original author created a stub stating that he was going to present statistical analysis of pay vs several self-chosen criteria for various universities. Such would fall foul of WP:OR and/or WP:SYN and he was advised of this. When deletion was proposed he contested this on the basis that because the content was not yet written it did not break those policies - but by that reasoning it is a speedy candidate as A1 or A3 (nocontext/nocontent). Also seems to fall foul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ros0709 (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete under A1 - no encyclopedic value, relatively unsourced, nothing more than original research mainly. Rudget  17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic statistical information of questionable provenance and value. --Dhartung | Talk 21:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:OR - UtherSRG (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP : Various reasons have been provided for asserting that the articles content and subject matter are both unencyclopedic. Viewing the above, the main reasons are :
 * 1) WP:OR and WP:SYN, there has been the addition of a novel reason WP:INDISCRIMINATE (presumably under the 'statistics' section, which I will deal with later).
 * Firstly, the WP:OR arguments. Specifically, according to the rules of WP:OR - what exactly is the original research (spelt out using the wording of WP:OR?).
 * Quoting Ros0709, "The original author created a stub stating that he was going to present statistical analysis of pay vs several self-chosen criteria for various universities. Such would fall foul of WP:OR and/or WP:SYN and he was advised of this." This is clearly in contradiction to the wording of the introduction of the article introduction currently "This article presents information concerning the amount of pay and the manner in which pay is assigned to Vice Chancellors and general UK university staff in general. The article utilises statistical information derived from the administrative Higher Education Statistics Agency. The article presents a brief (and basic) statistical analysis of the pay obtained by Vice Chancellors within various universities together with an analysis of whether that pay correlates with variables such as geographical location, Vice Chancellor publications records and Vice-Chancellor academic attainment (as an indication of Vice Chancellor merit).", it is NOT WP:OR to present information which is already present within reliable sources.  Thus this point FAILS - I am NOT presenting my own opinions AND I am not synthesising anything in the way of viewpoints.  As the information stands currently, all the sources are reliable (they are indirectly based upon HESA as a source, which is a reliable source of such information, and could rightfully be placed as an additional reliable source).
 * The problem is the second half of that assertion: "The article presents a brief (and basic) statistical analysis of the pay obtained by Vice Chancellors within various universities together with an analysis of whether that pay correlates with variables such as geographical location" (my emphasis). It is not original research to present existing information but it would be to make any kind of interpretation or analysis of it. 15:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) No context or no content. The article DOES have a significant contribution to make concerning information of encyclopedic importance to the running of UK institutions.  Hence, it is eminently clear that the article AT THE VERY LEAST deserves to be merged with the main article on VCs and Higher Education institutions in general by being added as a clear and separate subsection to those articles.
 * This specifically applies to the article as it currently stands - empty. You contested deletion before on the basis that the content which would be original research was not yet present. But whilst it is not present the article has no meaningful content. Ros0709 (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Finally, presenting information and "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning (a quote from WP:OR ('Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing.') would presumably be acceptable practice within wikipedia. Another additional reason concerning why some of the comments from above which accuse the content of this article of being unencyclopedia should not be held as being covered by WP:OR or WP:SYN.
 * Summarising source material without changing its meaning is not a problem. If you start interpreting the results and drawing your own conclusions from them then it is. The sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted states: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion ... then the editor is engaged in original research" (again, my emphasis). Ros0709 (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Issues of context and content are easily provided by linking the article to the main article on Vice Chancellors and Higher Education.
 * 5) Some minor points above also stated that salaries, etc... change with time. This is no way should imply the unencyclopedia nature of the article - there are many article topics which are dynamic in nature I am sure (living biographies are just but one example).
 * Deathisachangeofclothing (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Inappropriate subject for an encyclopaedia list. There's no potential for usefulness as a navigational tool: where are the articles about individual VCs pay that it might link to? Might be suitable in a very different form, as an article - if multiple independent sources have written on this subject; there's no suggestion that such is the case. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject of this article is simply not encyclopedic. victor falk 14:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unencyclopedic, WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2008 (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.