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. Scott Mac 15:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities with soil science curriculum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Delete. WP is not a directory. Previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Universities with Soil Science Curriculum-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No vote (In the interest of fairness since there are far worse lists on WP. Still I wish that all were taken off. The purpose of this list, from the comments of its biggest fan, seem to be to help students interested in the subject to find a school and perhaps to encourage more schools to teach it. These are worthwhile goals. As an organic gardener I understand the importance of soil science. However this is not what WP is supposed to be about so I can't vote to keep.) Not a directory. It would also be better for the economy if we focus on writing prose articles and force the colleges and other institutions to hire people to set up their own web directories. (Jobs would be created.)Borock (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as a valued information source per WP:List. It is certainly valuable to me. WP:IDONTLIKEIT and "Jobs would be created" are not viable reasons for deletion. Beyond that, universities are in the business of promoting themselves, not their "competitors", certainly not a directory of their competitors. Collegiality has severe limits, meaning this list is not viable outside Wikipedia. As someone else stated in the previous deletion discussion, this list is a particularly "valuable information source" to those previously unaware that such a profession even exists and newly interested in investigating it as a career opportunity - a classic event in my experience. As a member of SSSA S-573 Accreditation of Soil Science Programs, I view this list is an utterly unique and precious information source, valuable in no small part due to the collaborative and collective Wikipedia community, without whom this list would become stale. The criteria at WP:NOTDIR does not compel deleting this list. --Paleorthid (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:List does not say that all valuable lists should be included in WP. More appropriately WP is not a collection of links. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Paleorthid. Please copy this article right away and post it on your own blog or website so that the information will remain available to interested persons. However this is not WP's job. Borock (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern society does not appreciate soil science" (here), and it is no surprise that Wikipedia reflects this low level of awareness. Here, as in the world at large, a list of beaches enjoys more credibility than a list defining our modern society's endangered soil science academic capacity. Low appreciation results in reductionist thinking and, reading between the lines, part of the objection to a List of Universities with Soil Science Curriculum is the reductionist assumption that this list is static. I assure you that this list is not a collection of static data, that can be posted once and forgotten. Soil teaching capacity (in pedology, in edaphology) at the limited number of universities that continue to provide it, is thin and getting thinner. Soil teaching capacity can evaporate with the transfer of a single faculty member. Because of the dynamic nature of this list, and its global reach, this is not something an individual soil science blogger can be realistically expected to maintain. Providing a place to maintain and share this dynamic and important list is a great fit for WP. I am willing to work with the Soil Wikiproject to improve this list to better fit WP intent, but absent a specific and supported statement of conflict with WP guidelines, I am at a loss on how to proceed with that effort. This list is categorized as a dynamic list, a type specified in WP:Lists. I understand that not all dynamic lists need qualify as notable and encyclopedic, but I contend that the List of Universities with Soil Science Curriculum is notable within my extensive peer professional network, and furthermore that this list is encyclopedic in that that Wikipedia will be incomplete if it is absent. --Paleorthid (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. - Very useful list — and unlike many lists on Wikipedia, one that is finite. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no argument about its usefulness - but how useful is it? Traffic stats sow about 400 hits per month. What we need to determine is whether it fits with WP article guidelines and WP:NOTLINK is a strong case for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page stats can help determine how popular any particular list page is. But in no way, shape, or form is it an indication of a list's appropriate inclusion under any guidelines. If a list is viewed little, it is not a reason to consider it for deletion. At the same time, being viewed a lot is not a reason to save a page from deletion.--Paleorthid (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably as irrelevant as page stats, but an indication of degree of usefullness is that the International Soil Reference and Information Centre has a link to the Wikipedia list prominently posted. ISRIC is located in the Netherlands and as far as I know, no one from ISRIC particpates in the en:Soil WikiProject. Thus it is highly significant in my view that this link is the only link to Wikipedia content they have on their website. As far as ISRIC is concerned, the en:WP list of universities with soil science curriculum is the single most useful article on Wikipedia.--Paleorthid (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vaguely waving at WP:NOTLINK is insufficient to move this discussion forward. Can we get deeper into the "mere list of links" deletion criteria and discuss the term "mere"? Correct me if you disagree, but it seems that our differences hinge on our individual interpretation of this very specific term. I don't consider this list of universities nominated for deletion to be a "mere" list because attributes beyond the mere list combine to inform the reader about the status, diversity, dynamic, and condition of soil science education. These attributes include the size of the list, the history of list additions and removals, the geographic distribution of the programs, and the diverse names under which the programs are available (agronomy, crop, earth, environmental, ecosystems sciences, geography, geology, land, natural science, minerals, natural resources, plant science, renewable resources, water science(aka dilute soil)). To me if this was a mere list it would be simply the list of links to Wikipedia university name articles, absent mention of the college, department, or program, and absent ordering by state and country, absent the external links which serve as defacto reliable sources. Absent these attributes, I would support deletion of just such an article as a mere list. Obviously, my opinon as to the nature of meerness vs not-mereness is not shared by those supporting deletion. So I am left to wonder if expanding the individual listings further or changing the external links to a reference list format or providing a lead-in paragraph at the beginning of the list or some other improvement could turn this list from a mere list to a not-mere list in the view of those who support deletion? To me the list of beaches must appear a mere list to some, yet I recognize it is not. Do the proponents for deletion agree that lists like list of beaches are not mere lists, and if in agreement, can someone please explain it in a way that illuminates why list of universities with soil science curriculum is a mere list in comparison.--Paleorthid (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed that one list has internal links and the other external links? That gives an indication of topic notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After careful consideration of the basis of the original nom, in the context of this last comment, I am persuaded that the list can be improved such that the external links which triggered the WP:NOTDIR concern can be refactored as sources in support of listing just the wikilinks to the specific notable universities which comprise the list. This is a simple alteration in style without the loss of any content. Am I right in understanding that this style change would eliminate the nominated basis for deletion? --Paleorthid (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. A change in style makes no change to its suitability as a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to convert the listed external links to web cites. I hope that when you seeing this, I hope that when the deletion leaning folks see this, they will change their minds and allow us to reach a true consensus in favor of keeping this list. --Paleorthid (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. An encyclopaedia is a collection of knowledge that is collated about different topics. The list on the page is what I would call information, perhaps it could be called knowledge of a lower grade. Soil science generates knowledge about soil. A list of universities that teach soil science is not knowledge - it is information. WP does not need to have mere information. It needs knowledge. In order to be a respected encyclopaedia that is easily maintained indefinitely it is important that we limit the content to knowledge. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I understand you, but I cannot find that stated in any WP Policy. The phrasing at Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Adding_information_to_Wikipedia would seem to contradict your view. Perhaps what you call information isn't what this WP policy calls information. --Paleorthid (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing at Wikipedia:LIST#Information would also seem to contradict your view. --Paleorthid (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP Policy: Wikipedia is not a directory specifies 7 distinct situations that should be excluded from Wikipedia. Please indicate which of them you believe list of universities with soil science curriculum matches up to, so that I can respond specifically to your concern.--Paleorthid (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Adding_information_to_Wikipedia is an overall editing guide and it is disingenuous to bring it up in this context. Wikipedia:LIST#Information is the Manual of style and not useful for a deletion discussion. You are cherrypicking and wikilawyering to make a case for retaining the list. Please look at the spirit rather than the letter of WP policy and guidelines. Also, consensus and convention collectively should have a bearing on what is included in WP. WP:NOTLINK is a strong case for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if my bumbling attempts to get to the heart of your concern comes across as wikilawyering. I am open to persuasion, I'll switch to supporting delete if I can find the basis for it, and I am doing a lot of soul searching here to see if you may indeed have a legitimate concern. I have spent hour upon hour upon hour reviewing AfD discussions, WP:Not talk archives, and Village Pump discussion in the last day+. I have yet to find the bright line separating a non-directory list from a directory. Perhaps someday this will be better demarcated, but currently it is not. Which places a particular burden on you and on me to draw out the relevant points in discussion. I could use your help here: Please indicate which of the 7 subcategories of WP:NOTDIR compel deleting list of universities with soil science curriculum so that I can respond specifically to your concern. You've made it clear that I am absolutely incapable of reading your mind.---Paleorthid (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not put it up for deletion because my university is not on the list :-) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information :)--Paleorthid (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know that saying other stuff doesn't exist is generally an argument to avoid but I suspect there are very few if any lists of this nature on other topics. This is an indication of notability and suitability of such lists on WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Few indeed. I noticed only two other such list articles at Category:Education_by_subject. Normally, identifying universities with specific program emphasis is handled by categorization, and I have considered using list of universities with soil science curriculum as the main article for a Category. I'd prefer to keep the article list because soil science seldom shows at the college or even department level. In the absence of that prominence, the article's references support notability and allow verification in a way not achievable with a category listing.--Paleorthid (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The links portion of the entries ('not a collection of links') is really not the important part of this page--knowing which institutions have such programs is the important part. Soil science is not like biology, which every university has in one or more flavors as a college or department. It is actually a fairly rare item, and knowing where it exists is indeed knowledge. (For purposes of disclosure, I edit a number of non-soils Wikipedia articles and contributed one item to this list...but also on record as having deleted an institutional entry to this list that didn't belong.)PBarak (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listing which universities have a soils science department is not the function of an encyclopedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its grimmer than that - we often don't even have our own department, absorbed into other departments that often don't even include soils in the name. Yet listing soil science programs is notable enough for Natural Resources Conservation Service to maintain a list of US soil teaching institutions and for Professional Soil Scientists Association of California to maintain a list for California (which if it was a country, would have the eighth largest economy in the world). As stated before, ISRIC refers site visitors to Wikipedia's list for this information on a worldwide basis. As to your "not a function of an encyclopedia" comment, does my comment above in regards to Category:Education_by_subject lead you to reconsider this stand?--Paleorthid (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Although Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it also incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. This list is the type of information that one would expect to find in a specialized gazetteer. Per WP:5, keep. -Atmoz (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive Comment

• This one point is highly relevant and bears repeating: Per WP:5, Wikipedia incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. This list is the type of information that one would expect to find in a specialized gazetteer.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to offer a comprehensive evaluation as to whether this article is a list, as I intended when I created it, or a directory, which would mean it should be deleted.

• List. This list fits the general purpose of a list per WP:List. Like categories, lists can be used for keeping track of changes in the listed pages, using the Related Changes feature. Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of its entries, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available; lists also permit a large number of entries to appear on a single page. Normally, identifying universities with specific program emphasis is handled by categorization, and I have considered using list of universities with soil science curriculum as the main article for a Category. I'd prefer to keep the article list because soil science seldom shows at the college or even department level. In the absence of that prominence, the article's references support notability and allow verification in a way not achievable with a category listing. As stated in the guideline Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_series_boxes#Advantages_of_lists an advantage of a list over categorization is that "lists can be referenced to justify the inclusion of listed articles". That advantage is certainly in play in list of universities with soil science curriculum. And it certainly fits the stated purpose of a list:
  • Information. This list fits the specific purpose of an informational list per Wikipedia:List#Information. It is a "valuable information source" both because of its structure, the notability of its content, and the notability of soil science program listings.
  • Navigation. This list fits the specific purpose of a navigational list per Wikipedia:List#Navigation. Lists contains internally linked terms and thus in aggregate serve as natural table of contents and index of Wikipedia information.
  • Development. This list is available for the purpose of identifying and developing articles for notable universities, as well as notable soil science programs, per Wikipedia:List#Development. As noted in the essay Wikipedia:Categories_vs_lists, "Categories can't include page names that don't exist yet. Lists can." Listed soil science programs are useful as gap indicators and as task reminders to create those articles once notability can be sourced.
• Directory. The basis for nomination is WP Policy: Wikipedia is not a directory. Taken literally, this is a flawed policy - every list on Wikipedia is a defacto directory to Wikipedia content. To avoid the conundrum inherent in taking the policy literally, WP:NOTDIR wisely provides 7 distinct situations that should be excluded from Wikipedia. None compel deletion of the list in question, but subsections 3, 4, 6, and 7 seem the most likely to have been considered in this nomination.
  • 3 - Wikipedia articles are not the white or yellow pages. A listing that includes contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses is inappropriate. This list does not violate this principle.
  • 4 - Wikipedia articles are not directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. A listing whose primary purpose is to attract participants, tourists, contributors, clients, students, site traffic, and such, is inappropriate. In the case of this list, the primary purpose is to index notable universities that provide education in a notable field: soil science.
  • 6 - Wikipedia articles are not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. However, this list is an encyclopedic cross characterization because both categories, universities, and soil science, are notable.
  • 7 - Wikipedia articles are not a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge. Verifiable and sourced statements are important. The list is largely based on information provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and PSSAC but each entry not sourced from NRCS or PSSAC generally has a link verifying the soil science curriculum. In one case WikiProject Soil participants removed a listing that we could not independently verify. This is consistent with an article intended to achieve a summary of accepted knowledge.
• Notability. Lack of notability has been implied as important to the deletion nomination.[1] In the case of Not a Directory #3, the notability-related inference required to trigger deletion here is a list of soil science universities is not notable, therefore its primary purpose in the absence of notability must be self serving, that is, for conducting business. Notability is a guideline, thus less compelling than policy, but it clearly affects how WP:NOTDIR policy is applied. Guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability state: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." and policy at Wikipedia:BEFORE#Before_nominating_an_article_for_deletion is "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." In this case, links to sources that demonstrate notability were present in the article at the time it was nominated. In the case of the NRCS source, it was improperly placed under a further reading heading, but a good faith attempt should have revealed it and triggered the recognition that this article clearly fullfills the spirit of we want to retain within Wikipedia. -- Paleorthid (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Delving into the depths of useless lists. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, attempts to be a directory. Abductive (reasoning) 10:24, 28 July 2010 (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.