Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College–industrial complex

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

College–industrial complex

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

This article seems to be a short essay about a term I have not found used in any reliable sources. It does not appear to be notable in the ways that military-industrial complex or prison-industrial complex are. Novusuna ^talk 18:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not following what you mean by a "reliable source". google it (which i did before making the article) and you get 36 million hits, not tweets or rants, but bona-fide blogs, journals, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewax (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 May 2014

The terminology does seem to have some currency. Perhaps a link to Wiktionary? I didn't find substantial coverage to warrant an article.

Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- it took me about two minutes to find plenty of substantial coverage. google it.Mikewax (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary isn't Wikipedia's trashcan and doesn't accept neologisms with no evidence of real-world usage either. Angr (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "no evidence of real world usage" 12,000,000 hits. i'm not following what you mean by evidence.Mikewax (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unreferenced article. We would need to have citations to significant coverage of this concept in independent , reliable sources to have such an article, and I'm not seeing it. A large number of Google hits does not show notability if these are passing uses of a catch phrase. So it is incumbent on those supporting keeping the article to furnish the references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- that's not entirely true. it's not really incumbent on anyone, that's why we call it Wikipedia. "A large number of Google hits does not show notability" no it does not, at least, not by itself, not entirely, it doesn't. but it does imply something about how important it is relative to myriad other articles that are already on wikipedia, and it definitely does make it real easy to find countless examples of a term that obviously is not a "catch phrase". OTOH, there is a good arguement to be made for changing it to "educational industrial complex" but then i assume the same objections would apply.Mikewax (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The author didn't help us by including any references, and a quick google search doesn't show anything of substance. It shows the term being thrown around on a few blogs, but nothing that would warrant an article for a neologisms like this. Shadowjams (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 12,000,000. that's a real number, i didn't just make it up. let's do a little comparison with similar terms (also here on wikipedia) that you do seem to consider notable:
- peace industrial complex - 11,000,000
- prison industrial complex - 7,500,000
- military industrial complex - 23,000,000
- now if i had called it the education industrial complex (50,000,000 hits) you could still say that it's "a few blogs" could you not?Mikewax (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you put the search phrase in quotation marks? If not, your Google count will yield 99.999% false positives. Forget millions of hits, just give us TWO examples of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. That's what I've done hundreds of times when I believed an article should be kept. Please produce, Mikewax Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mikewax, a "reliable source" is a publication, not related to the topic it is reporting on, with a reputation for accuracy. Scholarly publications or news media are usually considered reliable; blogs or other self-published work usually are not, but there are exceptions. To be deemed notable for Wikipedia's purposes, a topic needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". For articles about words or phrases, that means publications analyzing or describing the phrase, not just using it. You may also be interested to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test. Cnilep (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked online for sources (exactly one lonely Ghit on Google scholar, and quite a few regular Ghits, but not the millions alleged - virtually all of the book Ghits are false hits), but all I found were opinion pieces that use the phrase as an ad hominem attack on the media, supposedly rich college professors, etc. I can't see that it's been used for other than partisan purposes in opinion/ conspiracy theory blogs, and then only in passing. Oddly, there appears to be some sources available for pre-college industrial complexes in Korea and Japan, but I'm not going there. Bearian (talk)

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.