Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political views of American academics: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:22, 22 May 2018

Political views of American academics

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

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

An WP:essay style article written with a clear political purpose, and that is based primarily or only on sources with a clear slant. Recently renamed from Liberal bias in academia, but the content is problematic enough that the new title does nothing to improve the situation. Carl Fredrik^talk 16:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Well sourced, has received continued coverage since the 50's, and easily meets WP:GNG. If you think there are POV issues, you are welcome to improve the article. Otherwise that is not a reason for deletion. PackMecEng (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Carl Fredrik^talk 16:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF: I certainly am. Unless you are arguing it is a content fork, which it does not appear to be, it does not meet any WP:DEL-REASON. PackMecEng (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of response is that? I would warn you against WP:BLUDGEONING voters during this discussion with comments that contain no value like that. --Netoholic @ 17:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's clear that, despite the title change, the subject is one that's notable only for the conspiracy theories and fake news spun around it by folks of a certain partisan persuasion. We do not have articles on the "political views" of medical doctors, firefighters, or other professionals. Moreover, in their capacity as academics these people are conducting research that is dedicated to neutral principles of investigation, documentation, and publishing. The current title, and certainly the article content, continue to insinuate that academics' personal opinions somehow taint their work and corrupt their institutions and students. This article is never likely to rid itself of these fatal NPOV problems. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The purpose of the article is to push a POV, as evidenced by the earlier title and the content. Numerous of the included studies say nothing about political views, instead only talking to party affiliation with the clear intent to suggest political views not in evidence. It leads off with a 1955 study. How does party affiliation in 1955 tell us anything about political views as parties were coalitions of citizens with opposing views? There is no evidence that the political views of academics has affected students. So, why would the political views of academics merit any more importance than the views of beekeepers or exotic dancers? O3000 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose spurious nomination. This is a subset of academic bias documented there and in several book articles we already cover. The Find Sources book links above easily show this issue has wide coverage and a significant number of sources to draw from. --Netoholic @ 17:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 :{{la|Political views of American academics}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political views of American academics|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 22#{{anchorencode:Political views of American academics}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Political_views_of_American_academics Stats]</span>)
-:({{Find sources AFD|Political views of American academics}})
+:({{Find sources AFD|Political views of American academics}}
+:({{Find sources AFD|liberal professors}})
 An [[WP:essay]] style article written with a clear political purpose, and that is based primarily or only on sources with a clear slant. Recently renamed from [[Liberal bias in academia]], but the content is problematic enough that the new title does nothing to improve the situation. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: sans-serif;">Carl Fredrik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF|<sup> talk</sup>]]</span> 16:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose''' - Well sourced, has received continued coverage since the 50's, and easily meets [[WP:GNG]]. If you think there are POV issues, you are welcome to improve the article. Otherwise that is not a reason for deletion. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 16:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
-::Are you serious? [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: sans-serif;">Carl Fredrik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF|<sup> talk</sup>]]</span> 16:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
-:::{{reply|CFCF}} I certainly am. Unless you are arguing it is a content fork, which it does not appear to be, it does not meet any [[WP:DEL-REASON]]. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 17:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators|list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions]]. – [[User: TheGridExe|<span style="color:navy">TheGridExe</span>]] ([[User talk:TheGridExe|<span style="color:navy">talk</span>]])  16:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)</small>
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics|list of Politics-related deletion discussions]]. – [[User: TheGridExe|<span style="color:navy">TheGridExe</span>]] ([[User talk:TheGridExe|<span style="color:navy">talk</span>]])  16:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)</small>
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America|list of United States of America-related deletion discussions]]. – [[User: TheGridExe|<span style="color:navy">TheGridExe</span>]] ([[User talk:TheGridExe|<span style="color:navy">talk</span>]])  16:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)</small>
+*'''Oppose''' - Well sourced, has received continued coverage since the 50's, and easily meets [[WP:GNG]]. If you think there are POV issues, you are welcome to improve the article. Otherwise that is not a reason for deletion. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 16:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
+::Are you serious? [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: sans-serif;">Carl Fredrik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF|<sup> talk</sup>]]</span> 16:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
+:::{{reply|CFCF}} I certainly am. Unless you are arguing it is a content fork, which it does not appear to be, it does not meet any [[WP:DEL-REASON]]. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 17:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
+::: What kind of response is that? I would warn you against [[WP:BLUDGEONING]] voters during this discussion with comments that contain no value like that. --[[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]]  17:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 *'''Support''' It's clear that, despite the title change, the subject is one that's notable only for the conspiracy theories and fake news spun around it by folks of a certain partisan persuasion.  We do not have articles on the "political views" of medical doctors, firefighters, or other professionals. Moreover, in their capacity ''as academics'' these people are conducting research that is dedicated to neutral principles of investigation, documentation, and publishing. The current title, and certainly the article content, continue to insinuate that academics' personal opinions somehow taint their work and corrupt their institutions and students.  This article is never likely to rid itself of these fatal NPOV problems. [[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 16:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 *'''Support''' The purpose of the article is to push a POV, as evidenced by the earlier title and the content. Numerous of the included studies say nothing about political views, instead only talking to party affiliation with the clear intent to suggest political views not in evidence. It leads off with a 1955 study. How does party affiliation in 1955 tell us anything about political views as parties were coalitions of citizens with opposing views? There is no evidence that the political views of academics has affected students. So, why would the political views of academics merit any more importance than the views of beekeepers or exotic dancers? [[User:Objective3000|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 17:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
+*'''Oppose''' spurious nomination. This is a subset of [[academic bias]] documented there and in several book articles we already cover. The Find Sources book links above easily show this issue has wide coverage and a significant number of sources to draw from. --[[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]]  17:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)