Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of California controversies


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

University of California controversies

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

Poorly written POV-forking that could more easily be merged within main University of California-related articles. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hank chapot (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it could be included on the UC page but the defenders of the University would probably not allow it. Poorly written? Why not fix it?
 * Comment: Mr. Chapot, you could consider providing sources before you put up a big article like this. And the writing could do with some improvement--I just removed a slur from your text. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Call me Hank. In my defense, this list is not hard to find, just google "University of California" + controvesy. It may appear to lean toward POV but this is what is coughed up online. And besides, it is titled CONTROVERSY. I used the NY Times and the Chronicle to find these citations. Some I just know from being an informed employee at Berkeley but I will continue to seek citations. So, if you want to help me fix the article great, I would warn you we will not be able to edit the info into the UC article because there are a bunch of defenders waiting to pounce. Hank chapot (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Slur? Harsh word. Hank chapot (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete since what's in here is already in main articles. The fight song business is in Big C (fight song), the oath is in University of California, Berkeley, the Drake thing is basically in Francis Drake--and I don't want to check every entry. Entries 4-6, for instance, are really way too vague (a matter of grammar also), and so even if we wanted to merge, there would be nothing here to merge. That goes for Drake also, for instance; the Cal detail is not in the main article, but it could be added easily--and this time with sources. BTW, nominator, if you thought merging was the way to go here, why didn't you just go ahead and do it? Drmies (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can see where you got this from from the URLs to the NYT abstracts. The idea that the criticism won't be "allowed" into main articles is not very sound, since all of the ones that I've looked at are in fact included in main articles, with sources and all. That there is some conspiracy to make UC look good on WP is unlikely to be true. Besides, if it's inside knowledge, it's OR. As for your use of "Democrat," please see Democrat Party (phrase). Drmies (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I advise the creator to instead add such material to the UC article and/or those of the individual UCs. Content describing criticism/controversies is certainly welcome, just source it and be mindful of NPOV. Adding to the "History" sections might be more advisable/easier than adding specific Criticism/Controversy sections. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Random list of "controversies" without sufficient context. POV, OR issues. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I was going to suggest you look at another "list" I produced which has not only stood up to deletionists, but has gotten better with time. "List of events in the history of the San Francisco Police Department." Also, I do not think merging is the way to go here, have you ever tied to edit a UC page? It took me weeks to get the UC labor unions listed because people are defending the UC pages. Second, lists have a valid place on wikipedia. Finally, sorry about the Democrat thing, it wasn't intentional. They all did good by boycotting commencement and other speaking engagements on behalf of my union, AFSCME, so why would I slag them?Hank chapot (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, let us continue this discussion.

Another point. though these issues could be merged with their respective subject pages, I would argue that there is a need to combine the controversies associated with the University of California in one place to allow for the entirety of UC issues to be assessed. Hank chapot (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —TerriersFan (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If this were a better edited, more carefully conceived, and sufficiently verified list, then there would be far fewer problems. (I'm sure that Democrat thing wasn't intentional, but it's an indication that this list was not ready yet to go into the mainspace.) None of these conditions are met as yet, and the list itself, combined with some of your remarks here, make it appear that WP:SOAPBOX should be invoked here, and it is something you should be careful with lest you be misunderstood and thought to be partisan. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no encyclopedic content here, no arc of development, no reading flow, no storyline, no tension and release, no drama. The title says to me that I will be reading a chronicle of intentional and related wrongs, a series of wrongs made by or against the U of C, or both. What I get upon investigation is neither; I find a stringing together of poorly selected beads that fail to make a useful necklace. Some of the bits mentioned could be utilized in articles about individuals or about specific university locations, but most would be thrown away as trivia. Creating an article like this to be the dustbin for inutile bits makes me vote 'delete'. Binksternet (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Binksternet Sceptre (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The claimed difficulty in adding material to an article does not justify creating a separate, more questionable article to subvert other editors. But see also earlier comment. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 03:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 03:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 03:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Though I normall think such articles a poor idea, this one is in prctice a useful indexpage, and should perhaps be converted into a formaql list structure. UC has had a extraordinary number because of its size, location, & prominence, that in this particular case it's helpful as a guide to the many individual articles. The lines that do not refer to Wikipedia articlesshould should do so, and if not present they probably need to be written.DGG (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, let's fix it, maybe expand it to include all notable events in the history of UC, add an opening paragraph, improve citations, increase wikilinks make it a formal list structure, whatever. I am not the most accomplished at formatting wikipedia pages, I am a content provider and depend on others for clean up. As to my complaint that some editors are defending the UC pages from controversy, it is a fact, but more important, in a history of an institution you would probably need a section on controversies, or a list of big events, separate from the main section. I ask you to look at my "list of events in the history of the San Francisco Police Department," which was a bit sloppy at first but has been fixed by subsequent editors. That list DOES NOT belong on the SFPD page, and it is too detailed and too unwieldy be rewritten in narrative form. But it is a good piece of historical information that has survived deletionistas. Shall we rework this list into "events in the history of UC"? Then we could add all the other non-controversial but important historical stuff. Hank Chapot68.164.170.81 (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The information should be spread out into the main articles. Very few address the UC system as a whole and some are simply faculty members who just happened to be employed by a UC.  Any truly notable event deserves more than a one line blurb.  Mikemill (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * and so we should make articles about those controversies that are notable, and give here an indication of them. DGG (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, say I write individual articles about substantial controversies that involve the university, not just a professor. how do i add it to the University pages? Should i use SEE ALSO or, RELATED LINKS? You tell me. Hank Chapot 68.164.171.40 (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2009 (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.