Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Continuing Education

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 keep. The overall consensus herein is for article retention. Of note is that some of the delete !votes are based upon the state of the article prior to its significant expansion ("The article as written is a single sentence with no references whatsoever", "not enough material to justify a stand-alone article"), which at this time do not address the expanded state of the article or the sources added to it. Also of note is that several !voters changed their !votes to keep. Lastly, some of the initial rationales in the deletion nomination were addressed by copy edits (e.g. "completely unsourced"), and the nominator changed their initial deletion nomination to "merge and redirect" in a later comment in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Continuing Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, which is completely unsourced, (a) fails GNG, and, (b) is of a non-encyclopedic, WP:PROMOTIONAL character (e.g. of prose - "seeks to encourage people in all walks of life and throughout all stages of adult life to recognise the contribution that education can make to society as a whole and to the lives of individuals within it"). Finally, mention of this institute is already included in the main article for the University of Cambridge and a separate article barely more than stub-length is unnecessary and redundant. LavaBaron (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The usual thing would be to argue for "merge and redirect" to Cambridge University, but I have to agree that this text is much like a sales brochure. I would have suspected it of being a port from the school's promotional materials, frankly, but there is a non-unique name, a promotional purpose, and a breaking out of a school unit to a separate article -- all of which seems to suggest the article isn't redeemable. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised text is no longer promotional. A merge to Cambridge University may not be entirely appropriate, because the text makes it clear that Cambridge only recently took direct control of the institute and may not regard this as an integrated unit. Therefore, I recommend a rename to Cambridge University Institute of Continuing Education, as this thing appears to be . . . sui generis. It's not quite an adult/community education unit such as is found in other universities. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete So spammy promotional, otherwise merge would be better. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Every US high school is implicitly notable. This is a department of the University of Cambridge and it has over 11,000 enrolled students. Now the current state of the article needs improvement, sure, but it's a remarkable stretch to believe that an organisation of that size, as a credible department of a fairly well-known university [sic], isn't going to be "notable". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every U.S. high school is implicitly notable. However, every university department is not. We don't allow an unsourced article about the Bowling Green State University speech pathology department just because "every U.S. high school is implicitly notable." Does that make sense? Maybe not, but that's how it is. LavaBaron (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11,000 students though is far from trivial. I can't believe that an organisation so large could possibly hide itself so well that it wouldn't meet WP:N]. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, inexplicably, it has ... LavaBaron (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A major semi-autonomous institute often mentioned in sources and which has been around for over 140 years. Not simply a department of a university. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are currently zero sources in the article, it would be appreciated if you could add some of the sources in which it's "often mentioned." Thank you. LavaBaron (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Some departments can be notable enough for a stand-alone article, particularly if the parent university article is already too long and the department content would be out of place in the former. And there is independent coverage specifically relevant to this department. [1][2][3][4]--Oakshade (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For anyone searching for sources, note that the Institute of Continuing Education has apparently been known by several other names during its history - from 1923 until sometime between about 1999 and 2007, it was called the Board of Extramural Studies; before that, from sometime apparently around 1890, it had been part of the Local Examinations and Lectures Syndicate; and even before that, it had had several names (of which I think the first may have been the Local Lectures Committee). The following three books: [5], [6], [7] are all concerned directly with different periods of the history of the Institute, but I had better note (before someone else does) that all three were published by Cambridge University Press and the author of the third one taught at the Institute. I will allow others to wrangle about whether this makes them unusable (except to note that if it does, almost everything we have on Wikipedia about the histories of Cambridge and Oxford Universities would probably count as WP:OTHERSTUFF). PWilkinson (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, PWilkinson. Under that name, Local Examinations and Lectures Syndicate, there is some extensive description here which is published by the Lutterworth Press which is independent of Cambridge.--Oakshade (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, one sentence in a 204 page book? LavaBaron (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For that particular source, looks like over a paragraph to me (it's referred to as "the Syndicate").--Oakshade (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right, there are three sentences. So, based on this source, we now know (a) ICE exists, (b) it was once housed in an impressive building. Hopefully we can find more WP:RS information. An article that simply acknolwedges ICE exists and it was once housed in an impressive building may not meet WP:GNG. LavaBaron (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several more WP:RS above.--Oakshade (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like the one that says 380 species were discovered living in the garden outside the ICE building (not that ICE discovered them, just that they happened to be outside the ICE building)? [[8]] Do you believe this kind-of collection of trivia would be appropriate to an encyclopedia article? An article about a university department should include things like when it was founded, its organizational dynamics, programs supported, notable achievements, and so forth. An article that includes nothing but to say "X department exists - we don't know when it was founded or the extent of programs it offers - but there are 380 species living in the garden outside its building" is not an encyclopedia article. LavaBaron (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually usable, but anyway, cherry picking 1 source you don't like out of 8 sources that are currently provided isn't helpful in this discussion. This source for example does include things like when it was founded, its organizational dynamics, programs supported, notable achievements, etc. It even states it's the "oldest such university department in the country." If a reliable source describes something as notable, then it's notable. It's reliable sources that decide what's notable, not wikipedia editors.--Oakshade (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly cherry-picked it. It was the first source in the list. And, in fact, it is wikipedia editors that decide if something is notable, not some mysterious force. As per WP:N, notability is a test used by editors. LavaBaron (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First or last source on the list, choosing one out of eight sources to diss as if that's the only source and ignoring one that even gives the exact information you requested is cherry-picking. As per WP:N above your provided quote, Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. That "test" WP:N speaks of is a test of reliable sources. If you'd like to change WP:N to ignore reliable sources and just go by what editors think, you can make your case on WP:N's talk page. --Oakshade (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Won't someone think of the horses? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge From the most general considerations, not just the rules of Wikipedia, I want to say that it is possible to insert into an existing article on Cambridge.Shad Innet (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge or University of Cambridge? As both of those are already massive topics, with no room for this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am agree. Keep Shad Innet (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, or failing that, delete. The article as written is a single sentence with no references whatsoever. It was redirected for three years and no-one even noticed. I looked at the pre-AfD version and it was all promotional puffery. I glanced over the sources and none were above WP:ROUTINE. Pace Andy Dingley, a institute with 11,000 students (source? how many are full-time?) will generate news coverage, but that doesn't indicate notability. Mackensen (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE discourages sources that are, as it states, "sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc." The coverage about this institution are far beyond such "routine" coverage and goes in-depth about its history and description. "Pre-AfD" article state is the absolute wrong method to assess a current article. WP:GNG states clearly is requires the existence of sources, not that they be already in the article. An article being a stub is not a proper reason for deletion and it's beyond a single sentence now anyway.--Oakshade (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough material to justify a stand-alone article. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With the excellent expansion of the article's content and sources by User:Anythingyouwant I'm changing to Keep. Article now seems to meet WP:SPINOUT and would be too long to merge with University of Cambridge. Ghostwheel ʘ 20:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge leaving Redirect to University of Cambridge, does not meet WP:SPINOUT and is a department or program of the University. Ghostwheel ʘ 01:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteWeak Delete. The references are woefully inadequate. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the current version is improved from what we had before, but I'm still not convinced this is notable on its own. Looking over the current crop of references, most of them are still first-party. The's an entry in a "how to pick a college" book, but I don't put much weight in that; it's essentially a directory. The Daily Telegraph is clearly a reliable source, but the article isn't so much about ICE as it is about the more broad topic of the university branching out into non-traditional degree programs (i.e. "dumbing down"). ICE is just one of the colleges mentioned in passing. I'm undecided on the question of a merge. I think the core problem here is that Cambridge is (many) hundreds of years old. When I read an encyclopedia article about something that old, I expect it to be mostly about the history, not about what's been going on in the last decade. Merging all of the current text into the main Cambridge article would be putting undue weight on current events. In fact, looking at the current Cambridge article, I get the feeling we've already moved in that direction. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Per Roysmith it clearly lacks third Party references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Change to Weak keep .per WP:HEY good stellar work by Anythingyouwant it is clearly in the Borderline zone.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete This is a tough call, but it does not seem like there is enough material for an article here. Several passing mentions are not the same as even one piece of in-depth coverage; at best this would be a collection of assorted facts about the place, with little coherence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Weak keep Anythingyouwant has done a stellar job of finding sources that everybody else missed. The amount of content now sits on the borderline between merge and keep, IMO. I am voting "keep" because merging this content might create problems of due weight on the main article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are sources out there if we look hard enough. See here, for example.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have de-puffed it, added a couple reliable sources, and accompanying text.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple pics for good measure.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 14 footnotes from five different reliable sources, plus five beautiful images, 253 words of (riveting) readable prose, three external links, and two categories at the bottom. It's a cute little article, now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• merge and redirect to [[University of Cambridge. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• merge and redirect to [[University of Cambridge - After looking at the excellent job of improving that Anythingyouwant did, I would like to change my !vote from Delete to Merge & Redirect. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User: LavaBaron, but why not keep it as a cute little separate article? The University of Cambridge article already seems to have plenty of stuff in it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did an excellent job in improving it as far as it can be improved but, honestly, there's not enough there to justify a standalone article and WP:CUTE isn't a thing just yet. Your improvements to the article will make it a valuable addition to University of Cambridge following merger. I'll give you a barnstar in a moment. LavaBaron (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the compliments. I have edited the article a bit more, and it is now over 2.5 kb of readable prose, which I think is enough to justify a separate article, and would be too much to merge into the University of Cambridge article. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you another barnstar for your latest updates, but I still think it would be better off merged. LavaBaron (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again.  :-) Since my barnstars qualify me to be bolder than ever, I have individually asked the people above what they think.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A tremendous amount of WP:HEY work was done by Anythingyouwant and this occurred after most of the !votes were made in this AfD. Great job, Anythingyouwant. --Oakshade (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to Closer - The previous !vote is the nom. Most WP:HEY work was done in the last day. --Oakshade (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect It's about the University of Cambridge, so should be in that article. Whilst this article has been substantially improved, I don't believe it merits its own article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was some practicality to merging this when it was a tiny stub. However it's now a 6.5k article. We can't practically merge that into the (already large) UoC article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Cambridge article is already over 135 kB. Per WP:SIZE, that's too large. Just like Cambridge University Library and many other Cambridge-related articles, there's too much topic specific content to be merged into the already too long main university article.--Oakshade (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An important institute with a long history that has played a significant role in continuing education in the UK, now with adequate sourcing. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is established by the presence of sources; article is long enough to be a stand alone, text isn't overly promotional. No reason for deletion. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.