Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American higher education institutions with open Title IX sexual violence investigations

List of American higher education institutions with open Title IX sexual violence investigations

List of American higher education institutions with open Title IX sexual violence investigations (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)

I have changed my mind on the value of this list. Per WP:NEWSEVENT, I do not believe that a list of schools under investigation has "enduring historical significance." True, this is the first time the schools under investigation have been publicly named, but what about all the schools that have been investigated in the past? What about those that will be in the future? I don't think an investigation of this nature is noteworthy. If something comes of those investigations, then perhaps, but not a routine investigation by itself. The OCR investigates all types of complaints all across the country. We don't have, for example, a List of Schools with open discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin investigations, for example. This article fails the WP:10 year test. --Briancua (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC) PS - WP is not a newspaper: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." --Briancua (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• KEEP As the original author. This was agreed upon as an ideal approach both at [[1]] and in the discussion for the deletion of a similar category (see here as well). Furthermore, the article meets every condition of WP:GNG in addition to being a landmark event in the history of federal management of colleges and universities (also demonstrated in the article), but the nominator seems to have missed the extensive number of news articles that have arisen in the past year alone regarding Title IX investigations, as well as the radical shifts in college and university policies (see for example University of Oregon and Occidental College). Finally the "we don't have these other things" excuse is neither my fault, nor a good reason to delete another article -- "let's lessen diversity in the name of equally terrible coverage of diverse topics!" seems to be faulty logic. I would encourage Briancua to go create those articles instead of nominating others for deletion. I would fully support the writing of those articles.Thebrycepeake (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the nominator on this one. I don't believe that this news is significant. I don't believe this passes WP:PERSISTENCE nor WP:DIVERSE. If you get enough sources, I will change my opinion on this article, but for now, I'm voting to delete. st170e^talk 18:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, st170e. I added some more links to news stories, as well as a brief paragraph about criticism to the lead - hope this helps you out (and feel free to add content to help with WP:PERS and WP:DIVERSE]].Thebrycepeake (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, if you do this, then I'll review my decision. I'll help out where I can. st170e^talk 18:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Already done! Thanks in advance for contributing. Thebrycepeake (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete I don't think a list is the right approach for this topic. It merits an article and it might be appropriate to include one or more lists in that article. But I think a better approach would be to include in that new article or in the specific college/university articles descriptions of historically significant events. For institutions that are currently under investigation and for whom the investigation and surrounding events don't merit a detailed description in the institution's article, a brief mention of the investigation with a link to this new article would be the best approach. Ultimately, I don't believe that lists are appropriate for ephemeral topics like "__ currently under investigation." I might !vote differently for a list of institutions that have been found responsible/guilty of violations although I still lean strongly toward including that information in an article dedicated to this topic where the larger history and context can be presented. This current list might also be appropriate as a part of such a new article but I haven't completely made up my mind (although I'm leaning toward "yes, it would be appropriate and helpful for readers (assuming it's kept up-to-date)"). ElKevbo (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I agree. I think this information, though not necessarily a list of all the schools, would be more appropriately included in an article on sexual assault on college campuses, or something along those lines.--Briancua (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe in White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, whose lead already links to this article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Except this list was released by the OCR, which is not part of the task force to protect students from sexual assault. These are two very different government entities as I understand it Thebrycepeake (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per comments and rationale of ElKevbo immediately above. To my way of thinking as a practicing attorney, the logic is the same as a "List of people with pending lawsuits against them" or "List of people charged, but not convicted of civil infractions." All of this smacks of using Wikipedia to publish a list whose primary purpose is the public shaming of these institutions, regardless of the merits of the individual cases. These are serious matters deserving of serious consideration, but context and analysis are required. A simple list of charged/accused institutions doesn't cut it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the nominator. These investigations happen all the time. The only difference is the government released the names of the universities. They didn't do that before. Universities would, and did, release that information at their own accord. So the only thing historic about this is the government releasing the names. Should there be an article about the government changing the policy and releasing the names? That's debatable I guess. But, the actual investigations aren't notable unless they lead to infractions. Dkspartan1 (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Please provide links to when universities and colleges announced they had been under investigation. Thanks!Thebrycepeake (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure of a Title IX investigation could be made by the university, complainant and OCR. Previously, the OCR would only confirm

an investigation if they were asked. As opposed to proactively disclosing the investigation. That information can be found in the

sources that you provided. Check out the investigation of Harvard Law School and Yale University in 2011 as an example.Dkspartan1 (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"Previously the OCR would only confirm an investigation if they were asked. As opposed to proactively disclosing the investigation." Don't you think that makes this substantially different from "all of the other previous investigations"? Thebrycepeake (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The only thing that's different is them releasing the names, that's it. Does that change the nature of the violation they are

investigating? Does that have an impact on the outcome of the investigation? I don't see how it's substantially different if it

plays no role in why the school is being investigated, no role in the investigation and no role in the outcome of the

investigation.Dkspartan1 (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• • Comment on my way out I just want to recap what I've seen here. As I understand it, a lot of you (not all) are upset that such a list exists, agreeing with either of the critiques at the end of the lead of the article. I respect your right to disagree with things, and would never advocate for anything to stifle your right to have an opinion. What I don't respect is the use of Wikipedia policies as a mode of censorship. You might not agree with the motivations of the OCR's list, but fact is, it was released for the first time in Title IX history. WP:N is easily established, especially given the large amount of news coverage it has received across the country -- both in support, against, and neutrally reporting. WP:PERSISTENCE? Nobody here knows if it will be important in 10 years, but none of us know if it won't be either. If it's not important in 2 years, we'll delete it then. But for now, it has sustained over 5 months of news coverage and reference in national and local media. (Side note, We have an article for GamerGate, but no one seems to have contested that) I think folks here need to step back from the controversial nature of the subject -- and your feelings about the motivations behind the release of the list) and consider it as an event that has happened whether any of us agree with it or not. The facts surrounding the matter make it quite clear it belongs in an encyclopedia that claims to want to be the most comprehensive in the world. We're here to build an encyclopedia, after all. Thebrycepeake (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Delete By its nature, an ephemeral list. Content more suited for WikiNews. Also, investigation =/= violations. Change it to something like List of American higher education institutions found to be in violation of Title IX sexual violence laws and I'd be more inclined to keep (not mere investigation; more permanent).--GrapedApe (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)