Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCLA Labor Center


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

UCLA Labor Center

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't find sufficient third-party references to show notability per WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Everything that I'm finding is from UCLA or related labor groups. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Very promotional article, with lots of puffery about its achievements. The article-sized section about the director, or rather "leader", is so POV it would never be accepted here as biography. There is not enough independent sourcing for a standalone article. I suppose it could be redirected to UCLA but I don't really see the point of a redirect from this title. --MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: It should be noted that it appears this article is currently being edited as part of a student project . Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 10:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep a notable subject actively being worked on as part of a class project, concerns hopefully will be addressed. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 10:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE isn't a valid argument. But I'd be curious to hear why you think it's notable. In my view it fails WP:GNG. Also remember that per WP:NOTTA, "student editors should be treated in the same way any new editor is treated, without any special considerations that other editors do not receive." Tchaliburton (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment - Probably not notable based on our reckoning that individual departments of academic institutions are not notable. Note that this is an entity that has organized class WP-editing projects in the past and this may well be part of an ongoing project, so please userfy in the event of deletion. Carrite (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep. Most such centers aren ot notable, and I have supported the deletion of dozens of them. But a few of them at the most important universities are,and this is an example. It would however need some rewriting, to remove fluff and excessive detail.  DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was asked to take another look in light of recent editing. I still find that the center fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from independent reliable sources (the Daily Bruin is not an independent source). This is not any kind of value judgment on the center's worthiness to exist, just an application of Wikipedia's notability policy. If the subject doesn't qualify for a standalone article, it could get a paragraph at the UCLA page. --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: I might be in agreement to merge (see "conclusion" below):
 * Comments: Instructions and advice found at Student assignments gives a lot of instructions to "new student editors", and they can (and should) be directed to New contributors' help page, however; a look for information on a "new users page" returns New users that is a failed attempt to restrict "new users". Taking this into account I would say there is a slight difference between the two and some tolerance leaning towards student editors. I think this is an electronic encyclopedia for education, and with that in mind, I think we should "always" give some leeway to allowing for the education of potential new editors.

In this case our reckoning directs that notability is not inherited so the criteria for inclusion must be based on individual notability. I did not go any farther yet because I ran into a problem and have issues: This article (according to the lead) is a unit of: UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.
 * According to what I read we have: a)- this article that self-explains that it is a unit of (consists of four bodies), b)- another article, that is yet a department of, c)- another article (UCLA).


 * Conclusion: I commented to delete but IF the article "UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment" is acceptable then possibly a "merge" to that article. If that article is not notable there is a problem.
 * Suggestion: I would suggest that the teacher and possibly any potential students read the above "Wikipedia:Student assignments" especially the instructions concerning Course pages, user pages, and user names. The reason for this section is to allow students to make contributions to Wikipedia while having some over-sight. Teachers! Please observe On privacy, confidentiality and discretion and How to not get outed on Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG, also search on Google Books or GScholar and you get hundreds of mentions. Wincent77 (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep . In the 23 days since this article was listed it has been significantly cleaned up. I find nothing promotional about the current cast and as per it ought to be kept now. THis does not mean that I endorse according 'leeway' to articles created as part of an educational project. Still smarting from the IEP, I belive that the same rules for article creation should apply to everyone and that it s the role of the teachers to make that clear. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The only leeway we should give them is to to over-rapidly deleted working versions. Most course now do their writing offline to avoid this, and don't add it to article space until the end of the term. This may in practice be necessary in our environment, but it's not a good solution, because the original intent   that the students would benefit for   ongoing criticism in mainspace, is much more in keeping with WP. There are also instances where the finished article is better than our standard in, but in a way we do not usually see, such as he detailed specific analaysis of one particular event or artwork, and people have sometimes said such articles are inappropriate for WP as excessively detailed and erudite. Actually, it's the rest of the encyclopedia which should have the  long range goal of  mreaching that higher and more detailed standard.We have something to learn form the best of the student work.  DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 2 January 2015 (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.