Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of academic computer science departments


 * 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 for deletion. There was no consensus that the list was OR, and no consensus that the nature of the information was indiscriminate. The keep arguments specifically addressed those allegations and, while its likely that they did not to so to everybody's satisfaction, it's enough to keep the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

List of academic computer science departments

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

Wikipedia is not for listing everything under the sun. I think this page is a problem when on the talk page itself, it has to establish a methodology, violating WP:OR. erc talk/contribs 18:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Vantelimus, allow me to expand on my reasoning. First, let me address the WP:OR concerns. "Please use the discussion tab to see the methodology used to compile this list and what additions should and should not be made to it." This is clearly not encyclopedic and reeks of original research. Yes, the links are all verifiable, they all link to a computer science department, but wikipedia is not JUST about verifiable information. Currently, the list is only about United States institutions. It has been expressed that it should be expanded to an international scope but how does one exactly compare international institutions? It seems pretty hard to do without original research--not to mention the current list uses some arbitrary methodology set forth by the creator. The scope of this page is also dubious. Most universities have a computer science department; at this point, you would just have a duplicate list of major universities. I see this article of dubious value, as the main contributer stated that he made this for his own personal use--granted, this is not a reason in and of itself, but wikipedia is not a blog or personal hosting space. This article, like any list, does not contain any sort of comprehensive discussion or history. However, what makes some lists useful is that they present information that is otherwise located in disparate locations or hard to locate at all. This is not the case in this instance. Keep in mind, this is not a list of notable departments either, theoretically any and all departments could be listed, in addition to setting precedent for every other academic subject to have such a page. "Indiscriminate" list of information, I contend, is also subject to debate - I would say that this list has the potential to, and already is, an indiscriminate list. Are we going to hunt for every college in the world to add it on here? As I see it, this is a not very-well organized list that doesn't further wiki's goals. erc talk/contribs 00:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   --  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 19:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - First, to address the OR complaint. The "methodology" established on the talk page is a description of what "'source-based' research" he has done so far. It does not purport to be a comprehensive and complete list; his "methodology" is for the benefit of anyone else who wants to expand the list and is not a description of what criteria something must meet in order to be on the list. As far as the argument that it should be deleted per WP:NOT, I would say that this list meets BOTH of the criteria described there (the entries on the list are famous because of their association with the list topic, and it is a good list for quick reference). I see no reason to delete this article. Coanda-1910 (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Revised: I think some good points have been made about the size of the potential list. A list of graduate schools would perhaps be manageable, but that is not this article topic. Delete or rename. Coanda-1910 (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: This user started editing on April 1, 2008, and has made few edits outside of AfDs. erctalk/contribs 21:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a new account and one of my interests is in watching AfD discussions. I also have made few edits INSIDE AfDs. What does all this have to do with the points I just made? Coanda-1910 (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with your comments. It is rhetoric, an example of argumentum ad hominem, a well-known fallacy. The Comment can be safely ignored as it adds nothing to the discussion. Vantelimus (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has never been a democracy. An account that does nothing but !vote on AfDs should be noted as votestacking. erc talk/contribs 00:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The relevance of Wikipedia being a democracy has no bearing on the situation at hand. Neither Coanda nor Vantelimus has claimed it was a democracy, and judging their votes based on the merits of their arguments (which you have not done in either comment I will point out) doesn't mean we suddenly have to accept the vote of every single account that finds its way to this page.  As for the claim that Coanda is vote stacking, this is polemical and another example of ad hominem coming from erc.  I was looking at the guy's contributions (which is how I found this sorry little dispute), and he has been contributing heavily to a number of video game discussions as of recent.  Just because it is a new account doesn't mean you should go around calling it a sockpuppet.  The guy disagrees with your AFD and it should have been left at that.  As for the topic at hand, I am hardly qualified to weigh in, so no opinion.FareedMcLure (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies all, Fareed is one of my roommates who is entertained by following my wikipedia edits and making tongue-in-cheek replies. Coanda-1910 (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase Malachi Johnson: "if I see any meatpuppets on our land, after tomorrow, I'm gonna start carving 'em into steaks." I mean, look at"the profoundly stupid form in which [these meatpuppets] left the page." WilliamPitts (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * dubious Here are the problems about articles like this:. The list would be very much longer if it matched the title--this is actually just a list of (mostly) US depts offering doctoral degrees and some with masters'. The methodology hasnt reached BA level yet. If it did, there would probably be a few hundred more to add. If we had this,  we could appropriately then have articles for every academic major. In  the case of, say, English, it would be a list of every university and college in the world. even if limited to doctoral degrees, it would be a list of essentially every doctoral-granting university. In some subjects, like this, there's a basic list to go on. In others, there won't be. It is not really OR, because its just the compilation of available information from reliable sources.  But on the other hand, in most subjects, there is no convenient list of this sort available elsewhere, at least on the web, and this could be a real service. It would be hard to argue that the information itself is not encyclopedic, when such information is included in every university article we have. I think we need to decide this not on narrow considerations of this particular article, but about what we really want to do. I suggest keeping this for now and starting a discussion somewhere appropriate. DGG (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The reason for proposing the deletion is weak. First, not may be applicable, but the proposer of the deletion has not made a case. Merely stating it is applicable is not a justification. Before I could agree, I would have to know why he thinks this particular list is not appropriate. In other words, he has not made his case.  Second, I don't think the case for deletion under WP:OR has been made. The information is from reliable sources (though the sources could be better documented), it doesn't promote a point of view, etc. So, on either grounds, the proposer has failed his obligation to make his case.  Vantelimus (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Expanded reasoning up top. erc talk/contribs 00:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - This qualifies under WP:LIST. It's not indiscriminate given the content so WP:NOT does not apply, nor does WP:NOR or WP:SYNTHESIS as the links are reliable.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 06:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm interested in how this AfD works out either way. In terms of OR, I can see why the methodology could be interpreted as being problematic. However, I rather like it. First, it seems more like a methodology of how the editor approached finding the institutions. This is valuable, as it means that others tackling the same issue won't accidentally follow the same approach and find nothing new to add. Second, I found the bit explaining what the boundaries of the list are to be excellent, and in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines. It prevents this from becoming an indiscriminate list, as the requirements are clearly spelled out. (Must offer a post grad qualifications, must be verifiable, etc). And third, all lists that aren't a verbatim copy of a pre-existing list (and therefore hitting copyright issues) must, in some sense, be OR, as the list needs to be compiled based on some criteria. This list seems to have less of a problem than many others, because the criteria is not based on interpretation, but on clearly established non-controversial rules. The other main plus for me was that this is a genuinely useful list that can't be found elsewhere: if I was interested in doing post-grad Comp Sci work this would be the perfect place to start. I had three concerns, though: a) length, especially if it stops being US-centric, as it isn't as if CompSci is a rare discipline.  b) the article name ("academic" is a poor choice of words, "universities offering research degrees ...", or "universities offering post graduate degrees ...", might be better), and c) what would happen if, as DGG pointed out, this was extended to be a list of undergraduate degrees for the discipline, but a list of universities offering CompSci would be nothing more than a list of universities. I can see a stronger case for less common discipline. Nevertheless, in balance I see it as useful enough to warrant keeping, and within Wikipedia's guidelines, but I agree with DGG that a more general discussion elsewhere may be warranted. - Bilby (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete (however, I wouldn't object to keeping it for now if a more general discussion is started as suggested by DGG.) If this is not a perfect example of the type of directory specifically excluded by WP:NOT, I don't know what is. If kept, I suggest renaming it to something like List of computer science departments in the United States offering doctoral degrees, in order to be describe the contents more precisely. The list is already huge and I don't think it can be expanded to become truly international as it is, because several of the columns only make sense in the U.S. --Itub (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a useful list and a lot of work went into it. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which is supposed to consist of articles which people can read to learn about a topic, not lists and directories. There must be other places on the Internet for them. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and re-name to Graduate programs in computer science. This is really where this lost list is heading anyway. I'm less dubious than DGG.  It appears to be a discriminate list. 17:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. This seems to me to be largely directory information - which, while useful, is not necessarily encyclopedic. DGG, as usual, has raised some excellent points, and this could use a more general discussion as well.  Pastordavid (talk) 21:19, 16 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.