Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metallurgical education (2nd nomination)

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 delete.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Metallurgical education

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

~~(Twinkle misbehaved on nomination. This has created a spurious third nomination. My apoloigies )~~that has now been corrected

The contents of this article are not about education, yet the title is Metallurgical Education. It has been in existence for a long time with no substantive improvement, and no signs of imminent improvement. As it stands it is a collection of text vaguely relevant to metallurgy, but of no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. Its absence form the encyclopaedia would do the organ no harm at all since it adds no value of any description. I'm not even sure that the topic is notable of itself. Metallurgy is notable, of course it is, but degree courses and education in it are ten a penny. With that in mind I redirected it to Metallurgy. This redirection was supported by two further editors, only one editor opposed, but has reverted that redirection twice.

The article is itself not notable. The user who reverted the redirection and created the article has had it suggested that the article be userfied, worked on, and reinstated if it is ever notable and verifiable, but appears to have refused the suggestion, considering instead that AfD is the best place] for it to be handled. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article does discuss education. It is an obscure topic, but if you read the article, it is clearly a stub in search of exapnsion. It went through AfD once. Then a couple of editors decided after three days of comments (over a holiday weekend) that they would simply redirect it. This is an abuse of process. This second AfD is an abuse of process. Think of the time that could be spent expanding the scope of the article instead of waging a battle over AfD. Philly jawn (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on engineering education, physics education, chemistry education, and for what's it worth, a lot of univeristies and technical colleges were called have these programs or are named after the field (Gorno-metallurgichesky insititut (Горно-металлургический институт, Institute of Mining and Metallurgy) and ''Gorno-metallurgichesky technicum (Горно-металлургический техникум, College of Mining and Metallurgy). Philly jawn (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS lists things to avoid in deletion discussions. Each article on Wikipedia stands or falls on its own merits Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay. It is not policy. Citing the other pages shows the relevance of this one. Philly jawn (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. It shows that other articles exist, no more and no less. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWNERSHIP would be worth a read. Codf1977 (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Note In order to attempt, this time, to have a far fuller discussion than the prior AfD I have left {{subst:Adw|Metallurgical education}} ~~~~ on the talk pages of all those registered editors who appear in the article history, and am about to do the same to those who contributed to the prior AfD. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. It's not policy, but
assume good faith here? We have the AFD process specifically to discuss the merits of the article in question, so bringing it here is very much not an abuse of process, and accusing other editors of such abuse is right out. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep~~ The nom's reasoning that "Metallurgy is notable, of course it is, but courses and education in it are ten a penny" does not seem logical to me, as it could be applied easily to subjects such as those listed by Philly jawn (subjects that would easily survive AFD IMO). After looking at the article history, I am also skeptical that the article shows no signs of imminent improvement. I feel that if philly jawn were advised to structure the article along the lines of one of those he mentioned (engineering education, physics education, chemistry education) it would improve greatly. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete and userfy. After further searching, I note that A: following Philly jawn's logic, an article on metallurgical education may not be warranted, as there is no article on materials science education. (I know this is an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, but it seems useful to me as Philly jawn's main argument is an OTHERCRAPEXISTS.) IMO, the two fields are comparable in many ways. B: A google search yielded nothing useful for sourcing an article. However, I would hope that print sources for this article could be found, and so I would strongly support usrfication if this article is deleted. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 22:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Philly is the only person that really wants to see this article survive. We went through the AfD process last time and he didn't do anything to improve it last time, so why will he this time? All of the non-list content is really content that belongs in the metallurgy article. If he were to modify the article so that we had RS inline refs that supported specific points about metallurgical education, not metallurgy, then I would support keeping it. Until then I don't see how anyone can support keeping this article. Wizard191 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there is something very strange happening here. A whole raft of spurious links has appeared to the page under discussion created by Philly jawn. Some of these are through a strange new redirect page that appears to have been constructed to bamboozle like
  WP:RS citations for Metallurgical education, by which I do not mean a load of links to university and college prospectuses, is the way to save it. When and it of is verifiably notable as a separate topic then it can, if there is sufficient material to warrant it, have its own article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Comment What exactly are you saying? I see nothing wrong in creating links to increase the relavance of a page. Newport Backbay (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic and title are valid, but the current content is too far from decent WP standarts. There are numerous problems in the first part (factual, grammar, POV, no refs - I could list a half page of specific mistakes), starting from the lead, and I would oppose the second part per
WP:NOTDIRECTORY - there is no way to keep that list comprehensive and updated. The article can be easily saved by rewriting, but given its stale history, with no attempts to fix problems pointed out before, delete.
Some quick catches, apart from obvious grammar mistakes:
"study .. of skills";
destructive and non-destructive testing is not part of metallurgy, but stands above it;
"steels including iron-carbon alloys";
"Metallurgical chemistry .. is a useful study .. for chemistry students" (oh yeah!);
"[Metallurgical chemistry] course provides a basic knowledge of metallurgical chemistry; and managers or businesses" (Ugh);
"However, cutting-edge applications in this field [metallurgy] are developing super conductors and other atomically restructured metals" (Ugh) Materialscientist (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete / Redirect - redirect to Metallurgy would say merge but there is nothing that I would think is worth taking, may be a valid search term . Codf1977 (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's an incomplete, possibly bad, but useful article. Rather than bringing these articles to AfD, the nominator might think about improving the article itself.--_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 15:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia does not require useful articles. It requires
  verifiable. This is not notable. Doubtless it could be made more useful, but that is not the point. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Comment Please allow me to disagree. The article is both for a notable subject (education on Metallurgy) and verifiable (sources are sufficient). The article can be improved and expanded, and better sources can be brought, but as far as notability and verifiability, I don't see any problem with this article. --Sulmues^{Let's talk} 17:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are enough for establishing the topic, but certainly not to justify its numerous incorrect statements. If the article survives this AFD, I would stubify it by all means. The trouble is, there would be hardly any correct statement to leave. Materialscientist (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article may be a little light on content, but it serves a purpose and should be allowed to remain. It has improved since the first time it was AFD. I am always suspicious when a second AFD is made. Especially in this case. The nominator tried to get around the first afd by simply redirecting the article ... and when that didnt work went 2nd AFD? Newport Backbay (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator should note that it is not articles that are notable, but article subjects. I've no doubt the subject is potentially notable, but this article is so poor, and evidently has been for a long time, that it should return to be a redirect, with material added there. If sensible material on specifically on education ever gets too big for the main article, this could be revived. I looked at a few of the science articles on the "education by subject" template (Chemistry education etc), & most seemed as weak as this; I'd support deleting them too. Sex education looked pretty good though. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 12 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.