Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fields of doctoral studies in Argentina


 * 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.  However, the discussion focused largely on the list itself. Beside the list, the article contains some text that may be salvageable. That text will be copied to Talk:Education in Argentina so that it can be incorporated into that article (or any other article, if applicable). &mdash; Sebastian 07:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

List of fields of doctoral studies in Argentina

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No indication of notability of subject. Basically a list of subjects that can be used for doctoral studies --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was enhanced since the time User:Phantomsteve had proposed the article List of fields of doctoral studies in Argentina for deletion. You could note that were added multiple institutional links referencing the five core fields of doctoral studies in Argentina. Thank you, User:Carau/User Talk:Carau

Delete. Who classified the doctoral studies in Argentina into the five fields given in the article? Sources should be given.

The academic fields in the list are simply copied from List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States, and regrouped. The list seems to be an editor's own. If so, it should be removed.-- Palaeovia talk 23:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If the list had been compiled by an academic institution in Argentina, as was the List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States, then it would have been of genuine value. However, it appears to be User:Carau's own list, and is copied from the List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States. If it deserves to remain, then any user can generate a List of fields of doctoral studies in X, for every country X in the world. That would be ridiculous. Deletion is the obvious choice.-- Palaeovia talk 22:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Kept there There is not only one criteria in the world to classify sciences Argentina it is just a case. User:Carau/User Talk:Carau


 * Of course. But who in Argentina classified it? Not you. I suppose.-- Palaeovia talk 01:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Palaevia. Not me naturally, in Argentina the organ responsible to do that task is the National Commission for University Evaluation and Accreditation, which regulate all the under and graduate careers. On the matter of this discussion the doctoral fields are divided in the five mentioned categories, as you might see in the follow careers seeker engine:Doctorate Engine Seeker - CONEAU


 * There, are all the acredited doctorate offer in Argentina, although in Castilian it easy to distinct the five areas of studies (Areas Disciplinarias) as Ciencias Basicas, Ciencias Aplicadas, Ciencias Humanas, Ciencias Sociales and Ciencias de la Salud. User:Carau/User Talk:Carau


 * I had expected to find in Doctorate Engine Seeker - CONEAU some official classification of doctoral fields by the National Commission for University Evaluation and Accreditation in Argentina. I found nothing but a list in a drop-down menu on the web page. The grouping into five areas is not a national consensus, is it?


 * Whatever the status of the grouping, the actual list is copied from the List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States. -- Palaeovia talk 21:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete All it is is a list of academic subjects without, as far as I can see, any kind of authoritative reference structure. Declan Clam (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Kept there there is an structure, five categories are one. (talk) 5:50 December 6 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 07:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC). — Contactcarl (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Interesting. Your first contribution to Wikipedia is to vote here. And with a very feeble "argument". Sockpuppet?-- Palaeovia talk 09:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Very intriguing. Only 11 minutes after your comment here, User:Carau altered your comment's date from 07:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC) to 07:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC) . This disguised the fact that you and he appeared here 11 minutes apart.-- Palaeovia talk 16:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why did you use the ungrammatical "Kept there", the exact phrase used by User:Carau? Not a native English speaker?-- Palaeovia talk 23:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Kept there The List of fields of doctoral studies in Argentina it is not a mere copy from List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States being perceptive you can realize the following fact:
 * First. The US list it is much more extensive than the Argentine one.
 * Second. The Argentine academic list is smaller and doesn't has enumeration as the US's does.
 * Third. The order that the Argentine list academic list is quite different than the US's
 * Fourth. The Argentine academic classification has its own normative as have been showed above.

User:Carau/User Talk:Carau 7 December 2009 Struck !vote as user has already !voted


 * As I said sbove, If the list had been compiled by an academic institution in Argentina, as was the List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States, then it would have been of genuine value. However, it appears to be User:Carau's own list, and is copied from the List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States. If it deserves to remain, then any user can generate a List of fields of doctoral studies in X, for every country X in the world. That would be ridiculous. Deletion is the obvious choice.


 * This is not an independent vote. You voted earlier.-- Palaeovia talk 09:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - this makes no sense as an article. It might be worthwhile merging to Education in Agentina if there were some explanation as to why this classification is important relative to education, but I don't see it. -- Whpq (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Kept there It's not a copy, but being a list, simple reason why is seen so similar, undoubtedly has its classification according to CONEAU . As you can realize in the doctorate seeker, the institution's website offers those five fields of doctoral studies classification. Furthermore, you can scrutinize all the internal resolutions of the CONEAU's higher education as follows :


 * CONEAU's Resolutions and Procedures


 * Having not the same academic structure that US should be the reason for deletion? I believe despite latter still it is a truthfully list of doctorate fields of studies. By differing opinions with Palaeovia I hope that each country can have a list of doctoral studies by itself with theirs corresponding national academic institutions, open your mind diversity is a human feature. User:Carau/User Talk:Carau


 * No one is saying that it is not a truthful list - just that a list you created, with no verification from a reliable source, is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you look at the American list, the list is from an annual survey that NORC have been doing for over 10 years - all the titles and codes can be found (for example) on page 177 of Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities Summary Report 2005. If we could find an equivalent list of fields (with or without codes) at CONEAU, then I would support keeping this article, but I can't find anything like that. (Incidently, the same list of fields can be found at the 1997 summary, the 1998 summary, etc up to the 2006 summary (which is the latest currently available, for some reason they are a few months' late putting up the 2007 survey) - that's 10 different years' reports showing the same fields/codes being used. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment to Carau and Palaeovia: To ensure that the closing admin for this discussion is not distracted, I have strucken out any !votes other than the first one by, and unbold-ed any "Deletion is the obvious choice" statements at the end of comments by as there is already a 'Delete' !vote from you. I have also un-struck the 'Delete' put here by  which was accidently (I presume) struck out by Carau - Whpq has no other !votes here, so it needs to be visible. I hope you are both OK with this. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's fine with me.-- Palaeovia talk 23:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Me either User:Carau/User Talk:Carau 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Even can be found more extensively literature on Argentine Academic Statistics at: Secretary of Academic Policies, although for that should be downloaded a zipped annual clumsy report of 30MB. I hope this could work. User:Carau/User Talk:Carau 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Official references Hi guys, I've found new references to support the five doctorate type in Argentina at bottom the mentioned links.


 * To save others from the wild-goose chase, let me point out that the "references" contain no list of doctoral fields, and are not, in any way, shape, or form, a credible source for the page's current content.


 * To repeat, ad nauseam, User:Carau generated a list, by himself, and presented it here. This is not how Wikipedia contents are produced.-- Palaeovia talk 22:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * References


 * 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.