Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication


 * 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 send for cleanup (yes, this is an option since the old days). I think everyone is in agreement that the article needs additional sources and work, so let's get it done. If that doesn't work out, the keep arguments will be significantly weakened in any future AfD or merge/redirect discussions. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In short, WP:RS. I have nominated this page because it has no citations, and it appears that the information is taken directly from the "SOJCs" own webpage - i.e. is just promotional garbage. Also lacking WP:Notability, as we don't have a page (or need one) for every journalism department in the world. FarahPanda (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'd be happy to help adding citations and making the tone more neutral. As for notability, SOJC is considered by some to be one of the top journalism schools in the United States and certainly in Oregon. ChaseKR (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep w/ Reliable Sources. I agree with Chase, but the source he quotes isn't very reliable. It's a blog, from what I can tell - let me know if I'm wrong, Chase. I did a quick search through google news and various other pages, and I couldn't find anything that supports notability. But I could absolutely be wrong. If anyone finds some reliable sources (e.g. Chronicle of Higher Ed, AEJMC, etc.), alongside Wikipedia pages for notable alumni and faculty, the argument for notability is easily met. I can't do that work, though: Full disclosure, I've graduated from the SOJC, so it's hard to tell what is actual fact, and what is PR bs coming from what can often be an echo chamber about how "excellent" we are. If I don't see anything in the next couple of days, I'll have to change my vote to delete. But let's work on this puzzle together!
 * On a side note, Fara: The entry does help with some other entries that you're working on (e.g. Carol Stabile). People have different philosophies for editing Wikipedia, but mine is generally to help build up the encyclopedia rather than delete things that could use improvement. That's the purpose of the stub tag that is admittedly way over due on this page. I don't mean to be condescending, or to tell you how to do what you want, but to suggest a different way of looking at editing. Either way, thanks for being so involved! Great to see new Wikipedians coming out of the FemTechNet project!! Thebrycepeake (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is a blog and its methodology is pretty questionable, but it is tied to Associated Collegiate Press. Surprisingly enough, there isn't much in the way of journalism program rankings so we need to work in a broader sense of notability. Thanks for being honest about the conflict of interest! ChaseKR (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, of course. This article needs work but should not be deleted. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 30.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 14:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep for now, pending cleanup and citations. This needs work, which I will try to do. And I'll just declare up front that I attended (and dropped out of) the UO J School and at that time found the current interim dean to be one of my favorite professors. Valfontis (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Not to pile on the nominator because this article has been terrible for over 6 years, but remember that AfD is not cleanup. Valfontis (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Valfontis and @thebrycepeake. Someone that talked to our class about wikipedia editing said that if I linked to articles that were not good, people were more likely to delete my entry unless I nominated that one for deletion. Are you saying that's not the case? Also, I'm confused by @Animalparty 's post. can you explain to me what a template is?FarahPanda (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . I think the "what gets deleted and why" is more nuanced than what you have been told but we shouldn't have that discussion here, feel free to move the discussion to my talk page. A template is a bit of code that helps some processes in the wiki and there are many different kinds. In the case AnimalParty mentions, they are saying that if this article is redirected to the main UO article, we can put a template on the page showing that an article can likely be rewritten that would stand alone. It places the article in Category:Redirects with possibilities. Does that explain? Personally, however, I think we can fix the article now. Valfontis (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to University_of_Oregon. Full disclosure, I have never attended the University of Oregon and am not a journalism major. I don't doubt that the School exists, nor that it has some successful alumni, but Notability is not inherited. If there aren't secondary sources that describe in depth the college, beyond "it exists" and "X once ranked it as one of the (50, 100, 1,000) best journalism schools in (Eugene/Oregon/the U.S./the world)" (N.B. This top 50 list is simply one person's subjective opinion), then to prevent undue or promotional coverage, the existing paragraph that basically identical to University of Oregon should simply be redirected there. To those that want to "build the encyclopedia" (in compliance with policy) there is the R with possibility template, should there eventually be enough well-sourced, secondary information to justify and expand a stand-alone article. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect as suggested. One of the best 50 in the US is not especially selective. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - nominator failed to search for sources, which is required. Had they, there are plenty as almost any college at a university of this size is going to meet the GNG. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:40, 7 April 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.