Talk:Texas A&M University School of Education and Human Development

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 January 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Texas A&M University.

United States: Texas / Texas A&M

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas - Texas A&M (assessed as High-importance).

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Edits made by the below user were last checked for neutrality on 15 June 2022 by Largoplazo.

Aggie ed (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (declared here)

User with possible COI[edit]

I've offered to help Cehdcomm. I think we can probably come to a good compromise on information. They just need some help getting it there appropriately. Buffs (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

potential sources Buffs (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you have access to academic sources. Please add some of those and expand the description/prose. Buffs (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mays Business School is a good template to start from. Buffs (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFD disagreement[edit]

I didn't know the article was up for an AFD (this isn't a page I frequent). I would have objected. Clearly the page needs more information, but recreating the page as a place for more information AND including said information is appropriate as well. AFDs aren't written in stone. I think a reasonable period of time to create an appropriate page is an acceptable alternative. Buffs (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Hockett and JalenFolf, give me a bit to work through this with this new user. The fact that it leads the state in certified teachers makes the college notable, IMHO. I think some additional viable and well-improved content is available that would easily pass an AFD. The current stub is a good start. Let's give it a chance. If it doesn't improve, I'll re-nominate for AFD myself. Buffs (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. I acted hastily before; after all, the AFD was six years ago. I know that notability can evolve over time. I'm sorry for jumping the gun. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, we cool :-) Buffs (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and Verifiability concerns[edit]

This article was tagged for both. The sources appear to be legit/accurate, so WP:V isn't a concern. This College produces more teachers than any school in Texas, so it passes WP:N, but notability is a subjective assessment. Please specify why you feel it doesn't it pass WP:N. Buffs (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the last sentence, the 'History' section is referenced by a primary source. --John B123 (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That's where I started. That doesn't mean I can't find other sources and would be happy to do so. Primary sources, especially government sources, are not excluded from WP, only that they must be used in context and meet verifiability criteria.

John B123, I'll be happy to include additional sources, but people can't tag it with ^{[citation needed]} everywhere and then minutes later delete it for a lack of sources. Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. We wouldn't ever add anything if that was the process. You have to give people time to respond. Buffs (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a Google search turns up very few matches at all, none of which seems to be a source that would help satisfy WP:N, I don't see where anybody would even begin to attempt to find that WP:N is met.

In cases of dispute, the burden ought to be to demonstrate that something meets the guidelines, not that it doesn't. Largoplazo (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to the redirect. Anybody who can supply sources to demonstrate notability can certainly, in that event, restore the content. Largoplazo (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Largoplazo I submit that notability can't solely be established by a simple google search. Four sources were listed (only 1 was a primary source) and I was working on more. What component of WP:N do you feel was not met? I find difficult to believe that a college with 6000+ students and the largest producer of teachers in the state does not meet notability criteria. Buffs (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you still feel that this article does not meet such criteria on its own (an AFD would probably be best rather than just blanket assertions "this isn't notable"), I will create an article like Michigan State University academics to replace it and redirect to there instead. Merging with Texas A&M University is a non-starter as the University article is already quite large. Buffs (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buffs: Notability isn't established by our belief that a topic should meet WP:N in light of such-and-such considerations. In the absence of applicable coverage, you're welcome be surprised that it's lacking, but that's distinct from a finding that such coverage exists. Its lack can be said to speak for itself: Despite such-and-such circumstances, reliable sources have not taken note of this topic.

You ask what component of WP:N has not been met. I already told you: lack of coverage. What you've responded with are criteria that aren't considerations under WP:N. For an organization, the size of the organization, either absolute or relative to other organizations with a common characteristic (like "being in Texas"), doesn't itself establish notability.

You say that four sources were listed. I see three. One is a broken link, by what appears to be an associated organization (Texas Education Agency) that, from its title, appears to be a statistical listing, in which CEHD might be one of hundreds of institutions listed. That isn't significant coverage. The second, in Texas Monthly, states right under its title "BROUGHT TO YOU BY Texas A&M University", so it isn't an independent source. The third source is the school's own 50th anniversary website. Not an independent source.

I don't have to hold an AFD—an AFD has already been held. Independent notability was found not to exist. The outcome was "merge", so when you say merger is a non-starter, you're welcome to feel that way, but the latest consensus is against you. That makes it doubly incumbent on you, if you believe the circumstances have changed, to establish that they have and establish a new consensus before altering the state of affairs established by the previous one.

If you feel, after reading WP:SPLIT, that the university's article is too large and that the split would be beneficial, that's a separate matter. If the academic section were to be split into its own article, then, indeed, it would make sense to change this page's redirect to point there instead of to the main article for the university. Largoplazo (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The link itself isn't broken, it's just an aspx query; a link cannot directly be provided, but I'll work to fix that. As a source, that's where the information came from and is properly documented, but that's not to say the link can't be improved.

The AFD was 6 years ago. As asked above, please give me the necessary time to improve the article. Note that the College (relatively) recently changed names which will contribute to the lack of sources.

As I mentioned above, if I can't find the necessary documentation, I'll be happy to AFD the article myself (or move the information to a better source). Let me see what academic sources I can find to improve it. Buffs (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the outcome of an AFD would be different from the outcome of the previous AFD, which led to this title redirecting to the university's main article? Largoplazo (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, I believe there are plenty of sources available, however, many are not on Google searches. I will work on those over the coming couple of weeks. If I can't find something substantial, I'll create an article as listed above and re-post the redirect to an appropriate place. Please leave as-is in the meantime. I think it's safe to say that I have a good track record on improving articles. Buffs (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And as I stated above, your belief is not the point. There was a consensus that there weren't plenty of sources. This can be overridden by a demonstration to the contrary, not by one person stating their belief to the contrary. Could you explain why, after the AFD process found that this shouldn't be an article, you should be able to revive it as an article and keep it that way before you have demonstrated that that's warranted, instead of waiting till after you've accumulated sufficient sources to demonstrate notability before presuming to single-handedly overturn a previous AFD outcome? I would like to turn it back into a redirect and ask you to "please leave as-is in the meantime". That's how that works here. For additional insight, see WP:BRD. Largoplazo (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I hardly did so single-handedly. I wasn't even the first to do so. Once it was brought to my attention, I attempted to address it. Others saw what I was doing and said "No objection from me. I acted hastily before; after all, the AFD was six years ago...notability can evolve over time." Second, the AFD process consisted of all of three people. Had I known so, I would have voiced an objection and at least attempted to address the shortfalls (like I'm trying to do now). I don't have time to run to the library right this second, but I know of at least a couple of books that address this subject (that you decided to interpret "I believe" so literally was not my intent...I know there are outside sources, I've read them...I just can't access them this very second). I think a reasonable period of time to address the problems (in this case, notability) is a reasonable deference. As I stated before, I'll happily revert if it doesn't address your concerns. It's very difficult to add sourcing/information when you can't do so because of a redirect. IMHO, a process to undo an AFD should probably be in place, but, as it stands, there isn't. Buffs (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]