Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxbridge

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 Snowball Keep --JForget 23:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oxbridge

Oxbridge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Per WP:NOT#OR this page reads as an unpublished synthesis of original research lacking citations; while the term is a valid portmanteau it does not qualify for an article in its own right. The article has been tagged with {{refimprove}} since July 2007 and there have still been no reliable sources added for verification. Coldmachine^Talk 10:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I think that this is an encyclopedic topic, as it features prominently in British political and social discussions about education and class and is pretty thoroughly discussed in that context. It's on par with the US Ivy League. What's there now though is almost entirely OR and not really relevant to the actual significance of the term, especially the stuff about the cities they're located in and the other schools in the area. (Oxford's city centre is more industrial than Cambridges? And so?) I'm not really sure if the answer is "massive rewrite" or "nuke it from orbit and try again" though. I lean toward delete. Kate (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: That pretty much sums up my position exactly; while the idea of an article on this topic has some merit (e.g. a short stub explaining where the term comes from and what it signifies) nearly all of the current article content is original research; it's essentially unsourced editorial opinion at the minute and it would need, as you say, a total rewrite to fix - I don't think that's a practical solution. Best to nuke and start again IMO. Coldmachine^Talk 15:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think that some original research in the article means that the whole thing needs to be deleted. I believe that OR is only used as a criteria for deletion if the very topic is original research or unverifiable, which in this case it is clearly not. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The problem is that it's not some of the article, but all of it which constitutes original research. The entire article, which isn't particularly trim, contains one reference...a rewrite is another solution but it would require an entire rewrite, not just a patchup job. Coldmachine^Talk 16:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. AfD is not cleanup. The article may contain some original research, but it does not seem to be entirely that. Part of the issues may come from the fact that the article discusses some of its sources in-text, such as the Thackeray. Other parts may just need to have citations added. There may be some more meandering here that might support a separate article like Comparison between Oxford and Cambridge Universities or something like that. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The AfD is not for a cleanup, it's for a deletion, as the nomination specifies, under WP:NOT#OR. Quoting that rule directly: Wikipedia "is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge." This article obviously reads as an editorial opinion which is particularly obvious since it lacks any citations whatsoever. Coldmachine^Talk 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and reference better. It's definitely a notable term, and probably much more significant than the likes of TomKat. I'm sure references could be found.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It's easy to cite any or all of this. I just added a cite and there are thousands of scholarly sources. Deleting this would be like deleting Ivy League. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: with respect, an analogy between Ivy League and Oxbridge is entirely misplaced. The Ivy League actually exists as an organisation (an athletic organisation from which the term originated). Oxbridge is a portmanteau - it's not an organisation, it doesn't actually exist. This article reads as an editorial opinion on the similarities and differences on two UK universities; a more appropriate analogy would be if I were to create an article discussing the similarities and differences of Manchester University and Liverpool University. There appears to be misunderstanding about the term. Coldmachine^Talk 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We already have an article about Red Brick universities like Manchester and Liverpool. That's a well-known concept too and not at all original. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but there's no Liverchester article as far as I can see, and the Red brick universities article does not deign to draw comparisons or differences between the universities it mentions. It simply explains the origins of the term and the foundation of the civic university movement, and to be honest most of that article content is encapsulated within Wiktionary which is where this sort of material should be kept. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary of terminology or a publisher of personal essays or original thought. Coldmachine^Talk 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. The problems with this article can clearly be addressed by cleanup, ergo this is not a deletion issue. A very real and obviously encyclopedic subject for which there is a plethora of available sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] (and that was just from a quick google search). PC78 (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Do not delete is a pretty lame opinion from someone who ought to know better given their AfD experience, but that really does sum up my position on this one. The article could be cut back to a stub and improved from there, or simply improved from where it is - I have no strong opinion on that question. However, I do feel that the subject has an important place in British culture and that wikipedia would be sadly lacking without an article of that name. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The article may not be well written at the moment (though I've read far worse) but this is an important subject, common in UK discussion, and should certainly be kept. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. There are problems of OR here but they can be solved. I suggest deleting everything below the heading "History of the term Oxbridge" and start the cleanup from there. Indeed I was tempted to do that now. This term is important because for most of the history of english universities these were the only two. They still have features, like a full collegiate system for admissions and teaching, and the curious BA after 9 terms and MA after 21 terms that are found nowhere else in England. The term is also of course in wide use. --Bduke (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but cut down to size: I'm in sympathy with Coldmachine, but I don't see the need for a delete and start again approach. To define what's meant by Oxbridge, we need something, but much of the present text (including all comparisons between Oxford and Cambridge) is simply extraneous to an article called Oxbridge. Perhaps the answer is to split much of this article off into another with a more appropriate title, as suggested by Smerdis of Tlön. Xn4 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but trim aggressively. I believe some of the article is probably WP:OR that is essentially unsourceable, but this is an obviously notable term/concept and deserves a proper article. This isn't unsalvageable, it just needs a thorough rewrite and sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep "Oxbridge" is a very common term, and as a Cambridge student I myself have visited this site. For someone outside the UK not aware of Cambridge and Oxford this article would be of much use. Citations are needed, but article is useful and interesting, and thus should not be deleted. 23:44, 24 March 2008 (GMT)
• Keep and split. Oxbridge is notable enough an idea to deserve its own article, talking about the concept itself, which has very wide currency and a long history. The long running notable rivalry between these universities (which isn't germane to Oxbridge) could easily form an article - perhaps Competition between Cambridge and Oxford Universities? Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - definitely merits an article DJLayton4 (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but trim agressively or split. I'm with Bduke and/or Mostlyharmless on this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: It looks as if consensus is for keep; that's fine, and I accept that outcome. The upside is that perhaps there are now editors to whose attention this article has now been brought, who will be bold enough to make the necessary and aggressive fixes to make this article encyclopaedic, which can only be a good thing since nobody seemed willing to do so since the article was tagged July 2007. Coldmachine^Talk 08:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have edited accordingly. Smerus (talk) 10:49, 25 March 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.