Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table (re-nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. krimpet✽ 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford Round Table

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Oxford Round Table (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a procedural renomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table so that any closing administrator may be more able to determine the consensus. Personally, I would delete per Guy's original nomination, seen below. Will (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Round Table (ORT) is a minor business venture that involves a conference organised by an American company but convened in an Oxford college. Some Oxonians are incensed by this, and there has been a small amount of brouhaha on forums as a result, but the sources do not indicate that this is actually notable or significant, only that it exists. A short piece in the TES, for example, but that does not establish the supposed notability of the company. Most of the sources are either primary (business registration data) or not independent (the company's own website); much of the article reads as orignial research (e.g. the linking of the for-profit and non-profit companies, and the statement that they are members of the same family, which has no source; it's not an especially uncommon surname); and most of the substantive edits, including initial creation, have been made by single purpose accounts on one side or other of the external dispute, most of them heavily conflicted. Add to this a new twist: a complaint to the Foundation, discussing legal action being taken against one of the activists pushing in the direction of criticism and negative material. In my opinion, this article is more trouble than it is worth, given the marginal notability of the subject and the fact that the article itself exists, per present evidence, almost exclusively as a battleground for an off-wiki dispute. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • delete non-notable conference. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Per Guy, the only clearly independent source that has been shown is the TES article (last reference) that talks about the controversy, which is a fundamentally online forum kind of controversy. Still, it got reported in a reliable source, but just once, and there's no evidence to suggest that the issue has any deeper coverage. I don't think the user behavior issue should have any impact on whether to delete the article or not, as long as we don't mistake the large numbers of participants for evidence that the subject has lasting notability. (However, if the article is kept, I think we should place it on Article probation.) Mangojuicetalk 16:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to get enough coverage in mainstream media. If people are edit-warring over the article, this is hardly unusual. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:DR. The AfD was inappropriate because the problem is a content dispute. One side of that dispute is now advocating deletion, and is using sockpuppets. One outside editor, Tony Sidaway, has already created a good new start on the "controversy" section, and this article can clearly be improved (perhaps through the dispute resolution process) but certainly does not need to be deleted. The dispute thread at the Chronicle website has now been going on for over a year with over 1000 posts, the overwhelming majority of whom are academics, showing it is clearly noteworthy and controversial in academia. If you look at the archived AfD page, removing all the sockpuppets and SPAs (including me), there does not appear to be a consensus either way.Academic38 (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC) — Academic38 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Struck as an SPA identified on ANI. Any other SPA votes will be treated accordingly. Will (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Just label it as a sockpuppet SPA, it doesnt discount the opinion. --neonwhite user page talk 19:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep There are an overwhelming amount of metions of this in reliable sources.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] [8]Edits wars and POV issues are not a valid reason for deletion. This should never be used as a way to try and win an edit war. Consider using the talk page and other dispute resolutions. --neonwhite user page talk 17:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I don't have much patience for this reprocessing in the first place. Instead of flipping a coin, I decided to do a brief analysis using alexa:
3 month average Percent of global Internet users
  • oxfordroundtable.com = 0.000085%
  • theskulls.net = -----------0.00002% -- (online site of the 2000 feature film, the skulls, featuring Joshua Jackson and Craig T. Nelson, about a secret society.)
  • wikipedia.org = ----------8.558% -- (includes all languages)
8.558% divided by 2,218,000 english language articles = 0.00000385% "(figure does not include all languages)
The average english language article is visited by less than half of 0.00000385% of global internet users
0.000085% /
0.00000385%
= 22.078
conclusions
  • The oxford round table article is worth 4 times more than an article about a major motion picture.
  • The oxford round table article is worth ~22(x2) times more than the average english wikipedia article.
This may sound unbelievable, but it's worth thinking about.

For the record, I believe that this did not deserve a second nomination. DGG, and a few others made significant good arguments for this article. --BETA 18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Is it really popular, or is it a bunch of people repeatedly clicking refresh? Alexa doesn't mean shit in AfDs, neither does Google results. Will (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Even if 95% of the hits were false, which is extremely unlikely considering: "Multiple page views of the same page made by the same user on the same day are counted only once.", that still leaves 0.00000425% of global Internet users or 110%(x2) of the value of an article on wikipedia. P.S. Re:"shit"; remember to be civil --BETA 19:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That's all irrelevant. There are multiple reliable sources and that is all is needed to be considered notable. As i said before, i suggest this is closed and the dispute is dealt with in a proper manner. --neonwhite user page talk 19:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • delete - per my reasoning last time. There are not sufficient reliable sources for the notability of the company/conference. That participants are notable is lovely, doesn't help the company/conference. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've provided 8 reliable media sources and there are countless other sources available. The notability of it's attendees does add to it's notabily. --neonwhite user page talk 20:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you please cite guideline or policy for this? I am under the impression that notable people attend non-notable stuff all the time. -Verdatum (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability is not inherited. which is what you are suggesting. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The policy is common sense if many renouned people attend a conference then this would obviously add to it's notability compared to a conference involving nobodies. --neonwhite user page talk 22:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my common sense says that WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Then again, I've always believed that there is no common sense. -Verdatum (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If the conference is a conference of notable people, why are only three of the dozen or so attendees listed folks with en.wikipedia articles? The usual guideline for inclusion of folks on a list like that is that they be notable enough for a wikipedia article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete the most notable reference I can find is the article saying that they are involved in a lawsuit. Google News gives 4 hits, all of which only mention the organization in passing. So it seems to fail WP:CORP. A decent news article describing the group and it's signifigance added, preferably towards the beginning of the article could change my opinion, but I don't expect it. The reasoning that DGG is using is extremely alarming. -Verdatum (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - Apologies, I seem to have searched improperly somehow. The above link to a Google news search reveals multiple accounts in a decent variety of news articles. This indeed appears to satisfy WP:CORP. The article needs additional cleanup and further incorporation of secondary sources, but I see no reason for deletion. -Verdatum (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the reliable sources that establish the notability of the company. I'm seeing press releases in regional/local news outlets (ordinarily reliable sources) about notable and non-notable folks who are planning to attend the ORT conferences. Please add the reliable sources that establish notability of the SUBJECT of the article to the article! I would love to be able to change my position. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
These articles assert the notability [9][10][11][12][13], the conference is the subject of each article and mentioned in several headlines. --neonwhite user page talk 22:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
"The Oxford Round Table met for the first time in 1989 to discuss contemporary educational policy with the goal of promoting human advancement and understanding through the improvement of education." is the extent of the information on the company/conference in ref [14]. I didn't check the others. Are these references in the article? Do they actually say anything about the company/conference? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Reiterating a point made on the previous discussion: the articles are about the participation of the individuals in the conference. The reason these individuals are considered worth writing about (by reporters/editors) is that participation in the conference is considered significant. This says more about the conference than about the individuals. Acknowledged "SPA" here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
comment I only saw about 4 hits on google news for the whole phrase searched in quotes- and those articles were only mentioning in passing that the people the articles were really about happened to be speaking there. Acknowledged non-SPA here. :) Merkinsmum 00:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
According to policy a subject does not have to me the exclusive subject of a published article, it can be about anything as long as there is significant info about this.
  • The THE source is obviously about the controversy surrounding the event, so no need to explain that.
  • The Auburn Plainsman articles is about an attendee and headlines with Dean of students to participate in Oxford Round Table discussion. It goes on to state The Round Table has been meeting since 1989 and comprises of people from across the globe. This year there will be 45 participants from all over the world. “Most of our participants are sent invitations on the nomination basis,” Karen Price, assistant coordinator for the Oxford Round Table, said. “After every session of the Round Table we ask our participants who have attended that year to nominate others in their field or outside their field. We will send (the nominee) an invitation if we are doing something that fits that field of interest.” and Price said the idea for the Oxford Round Table was Kern Alexander, director of the Oxford Round Table. “We are the Oxford Round Table and we’re not officially affiliated with the University of Oxford; however, we have a wonderful relationship with the university, and we stay at a number of colleges each spring and summer for our different Round Tables,” Price said. “Our director and founder attended Oxford and thought it would be a wonderful place to get people together and talk about very current issues.” Price said the alumni of the Round Tables are active in the nomination process. “We have a pretty large alum that are active in nominating others,” Price said. “There are repeat visitors to the round table as well.”
  • The Arlington Heights Daily Herald headlines with COD professor invited to Oxford round table, more may be available but requires subscription.
  • The NY Daily Record says Matthew J. Fusco, Esq., a partner at Chamberlain D'Amanda Oppenheimer & Greenfield, has been invited to attend the renowned Oxford Round Table in Oxford, England from March 24-29, 2002. He will be one of 40 invitees to attend the discussion, which will focus on civil rights and employment discrimination. and The Oxford Round Table first met in 1989 to promote human advancement and understanding through the improvement of education. Over the past 12 years, the sessions have expanded to include topics beyond education. Prominent leaders from the public and private sectors gather together in a think-tank environment to share their ideas and concerns regarding the designated theme. Past participants include ministers of education, legislators, governors, business leaders, university presidents and professors, lawyers and other professionals from countries across the globe.
  • Salt Lake City's Desert News says The Oxford Round Table met for the first time in 1989 to discuss contemporary educational policy with the goal of promoting human advancement and understanding through the improvement of education.
All these can be used in the article, even if it is to be reduced to only the notable points it still is notable. --neonwhite user page talk 17:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
speakers go where they will get paid or receive publicity or a sales opportunity for their latest book, or fancy a day out, is what I usually say in AfD's when people try to say speakers confer notability. Merkinsmum 00:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

comment Merkinsmum, when you see only 4 hits you need to go on to click "all dates," then you get 130-odd hits. I am not sure I agree that the conference is notable because of the more famous people who attended, but simply by the huge volume of academic attenders (25 conferences this year, with planned 35 participants each, @$2940, which would produce about $2.5 million revenue).Academic38 (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep for the record, keep, and edit from a NPOV ignoring the POV-ridden previous discussions. DGG (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and SALT extremely tenuous claims to notability, and no realistic prospect of a NPOV version of the article ever existing. WP:BATTLE applies here. Significant risk that the SPA accounts that are overwhelming this discussion will recreate, so SALT as well. Mayalld (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

comment the version as last edited by me of course lol, and even immediately before that, is not all that POV, it seems neutral-ish although obviously it's one that might need an eye kept on it. Merkinsmum 12:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. I think that some of the comments above are missing the point about the Google News hits. It's not that notability is being claimed as inherited from notable invitees, it's that many newspaper editors have considered as newsworthy the fact that people (who may or may not themselves be notable) have attended, or been invited to attend, these conferences. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The point for notability is whether a newspaper article is about oxford round table itself, or if it is merely mentioned in passing. Which is what is actually happening in most of the articles. Almost all of the articles are not substantially about ORT. Merkinsmum 16:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That is incorrect. Please take the time to read notability policy and the articles in question. The articles clearly give significant address to the Oxford Round Table. See Above. We can extract much relevant information from the articles without resorting to original research or synthesis. This makes them non-trivial. --neonwhite user page talk 19:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That is incorrect. As far as I am aware, only one article in a reputable source is actually about ORT. You do not need me to say that source's opinion of it :) As such, having only one source is usually questionable at an AfD, and this is only a critical one at that. Merkinsmum 22:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No, there are multiple sources (detailed above for your convenience) these include THE, Arlington Heights Daily Herald, NY Record, Salt Lake City Desert News. Add this the multitude of university sources we have a pretty wide variety of sources. --neonwhite user page talk 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is part of an article in The Times of November 1, 1993. I think it provides a second strong article:
Russia is not alone in recognising the importance of links between business and education. Recently, more than 30 policy makers and experts from countries as diverse as South Africa, Norway, Ethiopia and the Philippines met to pool their experience of education-business links. The 1993 Oxford Round Table on Education Policy was attended by education ministers, academics, state government representatives from America, agencies such as the World Bank and the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum, as well as multinationals, including the Apple Corporation, Boeing, BP and Honeywell.
The strongest theme of the conference was the recognition that the central issue confronting all nations is how to respond to the new global economy. Inevitably, countries start from different points. America is a role model and pioneer, where the place of business in the classroom is regarded as natural.
However, representatives from developed nations were markedly less optimistic about the future than those from the developing world. The confidence and vitality at the forum of countries such as the Congo and the Philippines was founded on the recognition that the creation of a well-educated workforce is the key to leaping forward.
Dr Dneprov described the system in the former Soviet Union as having been grey and black. His task now was to introduce colour to the map. He regards the international business community as a vital resource on his palette.
The author [Richard Margrave] was a participant in the 1993 Oxford Round Table. He is head of press and public relations for the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, and a former shadow cabinet adviser on education policy.Academic38 (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability is not inherited. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • keep and edit mercilessly Ok, my opinion has changed from the previous AfD. I'm now convinced that there is enough sourcing that it meets WP:CORP. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Stubify - I think it is quite possible that the topic is notable and a reliably sourced, verifiable article could be written. The current article shows very little evidence of this due to bad composition, largely non-independent sourcing and a lot of unsourced statements and original research. Wipe the slate clean and start again. Guest9999 (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete and Salt The Round Table Wikipedia is not notable with its Wikipedia entry. The only 'source' is an article written based on a forum posting. Forum postings and blogs are not to be used as sources. I have been following this page and there are nothing but individuals treating this like a forum or blog. It undermines Wikipedia and the subject at hand. Please delete. TwoLove (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
— TwoLove (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Suspected Sock puppet. --neonwhite user page talk 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Stubbify - a conference where academic papers are first presented is notable in my mind, and as per Category:Conferences, but the whole thiing reads like an advert. MickMacNee (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep When professors, preachers, lawyers, etc. attend the Oxford Round Table, this is frequently considered newsworthy: newspapers publish stories about their participation (not about the individuals per se, but about their participation in the conference). This does not appear to be the case for, say, the West Chester University Poetry Conference or the Plantation Crops Symposium. In both relative and absolute terms, notability is really not a problem here. Sure, notability is not inherited - but if it were, the participants would inherit the notability of the conference (not the other way around). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe only mentioned that they've gone because it's quite rare for anyone in the establishment to attend/controversial? Not that I'd know. Merkinsmum 02:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

delete as a form of spam for a conference with a name which could mislead- or alternatively as an attack page due to the only in-depth coverage being criticism. Merkinsmum 02:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete I have to agree with Guy and Mango above. It is just a minor business venture. Undeath (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets WP:CORP, but needs some vigorous editing. Neıl ☎ 16:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Merkinsmum. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2008 (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.