Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. After much-extended time for discussion and robust participation, there is a reasonably clear consensus to keep this article and merge University of Toronto School of Public Policy and Governance into it, no support for outright deletion, and no reason to expect that further relisting would change that result. BD2412 T 01:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Munk School of Global Affairs

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Munk School of Global Affairs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable sub-entities of the University of Toronto. The Toronto Star source is currently the only independent reliable source that covers the Munk school in some detail. The CBC article is WP:ROUTINE coverage of a new director. I searched Canadian Newsstream (Canada newspaper database) and while I could find many quotes in articles from people who work at the Munk School, I couldn't find anything from independent reliable sources about the Munk School itself aside from WP:ROUTINE coverage of directors/professors being hired there. Many press releases though. For the SPPG, I could find no sources on Newsstream either that don't fall into "press release" or WP:ROUTINE coverage of people being hired to teach there. While I didn't dig through more than 4 pages of search results by relevancy or so (the professors get quoted A LOT), I didn't see any evidence of notability in the sample I took. Per WP:NORG, these sources fail WP:SIRS as I could only find one that passes the test for the Munk school. Also note WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, subentities of a university generally aren't notable on their own unless they're especially significant. These seem like somewhat above average public policy programs. While the articles make claims about the competitiveness of the schools and their low student population, I'd rather see a reliable source mentioning how good the school is rather than a primary source being WP:SYNTHed with the original research that good schools have low enrolment to prove that the Munk School is good. The enrolment numbers could be low for other reasons. I decided to bundle these nominations as the schools were merged in 2018 and the SPPG article, despite the name, appears to be mostly written about the merged entity and not the historical entity of the SPPG that was merged with the Munk Centre. I would ask for a delete or redirect because there's really not much sourced content to merge here other than fluff about its history and overwritten puffery about the program. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Note the other page to be deleted is University of Toronto School of Public Policy and Governance (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Yes, I know notability isn't inherited and all that, but take as an example this article, on a laboratory at the Munk School: Citizen Lab. There's an article that in-depth on something that is just part of the Munk School. For another in-wiki comparison, the school is part of the Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs; nearly every member school here has its own Wikipedia page (the ones that don't are almost all in non-Anglophone countries). Compare also the list of partner schools for the MPP program (all with their own articles). As the nominator says, experts from the school are frequently in Canadian media, or the school partners with them outright, example: [1]. Yes, that kind of coverage isn't "independent" in Wikipedia terms, but that seems to me more a guideline designed to prevent self-published puff pieces from being used as major sources. The school's experts are frequently cited in national media, because they are the school's experts. How does that fail to establish the fact that this is a notable institution? If this school were independent of the University of Toronto it would unquestionably be notable, like other major public policy schools; it's in the press more often than most Canadian universities. Here's Maclean's specifically mentioning the Munk School as a particularly acclaimed part of the University of Toronto in its ranking of school reputation: [2]. This isn't some nothing corporation trying to game Wikipedia with a bunch of advertisements and press releases. It's a major Canadian institution. -- asilvering ( talk) 00:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep/Comment: I'm new here, my first time jumping into one of these discussions. I'm jumping in because I have an interest in the topic of global affairs and (at risk of throwing in opinion and original research) the Munk Schoool is obviously important to me, from a common sense perspective of someone who follows global affairs. Also, I recognize that my personal opinions on the matter are based on my human experiences and not wikipedia rules, so if it's more helpful, I'd be happy to try and find quality sources and add them to the article? Would that be helpful, or is this the wrong time to do something like that? CT55555 ( talk) 14:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
@ CT55555 This is exactly the right time to try to improve the article! Many articles are vastly improved during the AfD process. Avoid doing something that looks like a WP:REFBOMB - that doesn't do the article or anyone else any favours. -- asilvering ( talk) 22:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment:Not sure how to categorize and substantiate this AfD. So, I'll refrain from voting. Pinging DGG and Timtrent for an expert's call. - Hatchens ( talk) 06:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge We've been very reluctant to make articles for individual academic departments and institutes, but fairly liberal about quasi-independent med and law schools. The question is what's the nature of this one. The nearest analogies are business schools, where we have sometimes but not always accepted separate articles. I think the key factors are the degree of independence, the extent to which it is widely recognized internationally in its own right, the standing within the ranks of similar schools, the number and prominence of alumni, the extent to which there is encyclopedic content, not just a list of programs and courses, the possibiltles for a non-promotional article, and of course the extent to which references discuss it separately, In this case I notice that over half the content is a mere listing of degrees and courses, and that the university seems to treat it as being capable of merged with other departments. But I also see a controversy of encyclopedic significance, the sort of content about the role of the funder that is likely to attract sources. (I notice however that the section is presently inadequately sourced especially for something inherently politically controversial, with no attempt at NPOV. And the issue arose over 10 years ago, so I'd expect better by now) I see no information about notable faculty or alumni, no information about reputation, no 3rd party sources about anything other than the funding issue and executive transitions. ,
So at this point I think itshould be merged tothe university,withthe possibility of future expansion. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Both to University of Toronto: I note DGG's merge opinion. I am not sure whether they saw the nomination of the second article or not, but it matters little. The Munk article suffers more from being pretty much an advert for a load of courses than does the UoTSPP&G , but neither should exist outside the parent article. Schools/Deparrtments are very unusual if they carry sufficient notability to have separate articles. My view is that they do not FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 07:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    Personally I'm just going to redirect the SPPG article to the Munk School if this gets closed as keep. This is because the SPPG article isn't really about the former SPGP, but is mostly about the Munk School in its present state. That's also why I bundled it in here. Chess( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Chess: I do think it is a good idea to merge and redirect SPPG to the Munk School. I think they essentially share a notability claim. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 01:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    Cosigning this. I see no reason to keep the SPPG article when it can be merged into the Munk School one. -- asilvering ( talk) 02:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    Ok, I've just gone through the SPPG article and moved everything that seemed relevant in to the Munk School article. The only possibly-relevant thing I didn't transfer was the stuff about admissions requirements, which just didn't seem encyclopedic. The things I did transfer would also benefit from some further pruning, sourcing, etc, but seem reasonably useful. If this AfD closes as keep for Munk, I think SPPG should redirect to Munk. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 02:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen Lab which I have opened today as an adjunct to the discussion here. It was obviously far too late to include it in this discussion in any valid manner, but it is a laboratory within this school, within this university FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 07:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It feels a little like non-Canadian editors might assume that if they have not heard of a school, nobody has heard of it, but when something is important in Canada it is important in real life. The University of Toronto is the single largest and most influential school in Canada; it is collegiate university whose sub-schools are often larger and older than full-fledged universities. It is by its nature an unusual school, and therefore not surprising that it might contain many constituent parts which are more notable than similar programs elsewhere, as with the thirty-nine Colleges of the University of Oxford and their halls that all have their own articles. I especially think it is worth paying attention to the frequent and widespread coverage of the Munk school's directors. For example, Globe & Mail 2010, Globe & Mail 2014 with an interview feature, CBC 2019. The nom calls this coverage WP:ROUTINE, but national news organizations like the CBC and Globe & Mail do not routinely cover every new department head for U of T's English department (which I would say is not notable compared to the Munk school); they do not even routinely cover every new dean for smaller universities like Trent University. The fact that the director of the Munk school is considered a consistently newsworthy topic, not just in student papers or local news but nationally, shows that people well outside of the Munk school are taking note of it. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 22:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
It's still WP:ROUTINE coverage for other organizations and I don't see why we're applying a different standard here because WP:ILIKEIT. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Please don’t assume I like the Munk school. My argument is that, although these articles discuss “the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel”, they exceed routine coverage because they are not “standard notices, brief announcements”: even when ordinary professors get hired to the Munk school, the event is covered with independent reporting (not reprinted press releases) of several hundred words. This is also just one kind of coverage that the Munk school has received. There are also the articles about its founding and the Munk donation, and constant coverage of individual research activities and events within it.
Also, for more clarification about U of T as a collegiate institution— U of T literally contains multiple independent universities inside it which grant their own separate degrees, University of Toronto Mississauga and University of Toronto Scarborough. It’s a bit like UNC Charlotte and UNC Chapel Hill? So it applies a false standard to consider UTM or, I argue, the Munk school as being a “department” of U of T. The profs are not called U of T profs (unlike eg the profs in the English department), they are called UTM or Munk School profs. It’s a weird system for sure! But that’s why I think unusual school outcomes would apply. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 19:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I'm not saying that you like the University of Toronto or the Munk School over other universities, but that you're applying a different standard here than for other similarly situated entities because it's a university. The coverage you've provided is pretty much a textbook example of WP:ROUTINE. In fact, routine/trivial coverage is explicitly mentioned in WP:NORG as encompassing coverage "of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel". I'm not really seeing a cogent reason as to why we should ignore that. You've said there's "independent reporting", but the first source you provided is an interview (not independent) & a primary source. The second source reads like a paean to the Munk School/Dr Toope, especially the last few lines in the online version: [3] "Dr. Stein, who will take a sabbatical before returning to teach at the Munk School, describes Dr. Toope as a rare combination of scholar, leader and fundraiser who can excite civil society about a university's work." Is this writer truly neutral/impartial with a line like that? Not to mention it's still just trivial coverage of a staff change with a bunch of flowery prose added about how great the person in question is for the great job at a really great school. The third source you've provided is the same as the first source; not as in that it's also an interview but it's the same interview. And the fourth (CBC) source you provided is just a reprint of this [4] press release.
You say that articles about the Munk School itself that aren't routine coverage exists. I still have not seen any. Where is this "constant coverage" of activities at the Munk School? Because I haven't seen much unless you mean Citizen Lab and the Munk School doesn't WP:INHERITORG notability from that. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 09:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply
on the connection to Peter Munk: discussed in a book front page G&M as mentioned in book [5] [6] [7] [8]
other coverage of founding: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]
analyzing the school: [14]
coverage of school activities/programs: TIFF partnership journalism program direct diplomacy project another donor water program [15] partnership with Delvinia SSHRC grant conference talk dual masters
the book prize they award: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] <-- I stopped but there's coverage every year, always mentioning the talk the winner gives at the Munk School
heads of school: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]
professors hired: [27] [28] [29] [30]
brief mentions: [31] ("the Centre for International Studies... will be absorbed by the expanding Munk School of Global Affairs") [32] history of a building
There is more. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 21:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Oh, some more I had open in tabs: [33] [34] [35] [36] ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 21:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply
And from MacLeans: [37] [38] [39] [40] ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 03:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per LEvalyn. The internal affairs of the Munk School get coverage by RSs in ways that other similar institutions don't. In addition, there was national news coverage of when the initial Munk donation was made and protested by students. Similarly, Citizen Lab, which is also notable and under the Munk School has multiple RS about its activity. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 14:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    Please see WP:INHERITORG. Parent entities don't inherit notability from sub entities. I don't doubt Citizen Lab is notable, but that doesn't make the Munk School notable. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    Thanks you, I'm familiar with INHERITORG. What it actually says, is " A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries" [emphasis added]. This means that if the only coverage by reliable sources a parent entity (i.e. the Munk School) gets is in the context of a notable sub-entity (i.e. Citizen Lab), then the parent entity doesn't automatically become notable on that basis alone and should probably redirect to the sub-entity. This is especially true if such coverage doesn't even bother to mention the parent entity. INHERITORG does not prevent coverage from reliable sources in the context of its connection to the sub-entity from being used to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Citizen Lab is usually referenced in context of its connection to the Munk School [41] [42] [43]. Other aspects of the Munk School also get non-routine coverage, from the elevated treatment of its leadership changes detailed elsewhere in this AFD as well as the controversy over its name, which got coverage in reliable sources then and still gets coverage in academic publication decades afterwards as an example of inappropriate corporate influence in Canadian universities. [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. Together, this is enough to meet WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 02:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per LEvalyn. The Munk School is of considerable notability in Canada and should maintain its article. This is especially evident in the fact that Munk School faculty members (where they are referred to as such rather than as UofT Faculty) are regularly quoted in issues of global affairs and policy, in both Canadian and non-Canadian publications. For example, CBC News 2021 Thejacxb ( talk) 08:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Thejacxb: Please read the WP:NORG requirements on trivial coverage: "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources," do not serve to establish notability. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 03:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to University of Toronto per DDG and Timtrent. I think that's a good alternative to deletion, but there isn't enough in-depth coverage of this out there to justify an individual article. I don't think that people from there are quoted in news stories helps either. Otherwise, make specific articles about those people if they are notable enough to justify one. In the meantime notability isn't inherited and we don't have articles for random places that famous celebrities have worked. Let alone random intellectuals. Merging what's usable is fine though. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 06:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I wonder if an RfC or something is needed to build consensus for a school SNG, more specific than WP:NORG and more binding than WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I have never opened an RfC and don't really know how it works but it seems like there might be a need. For example, I think we all agree that University of Toronto itself is notable, but I can't see how the sourcing on that article is any more satisfactory than what we have for the Munk School: it is all either discussing sub-entities (such as individual programs and professors) which might not be inherited, or it is published by University of Toronto sub-organizations. I think the Munk School passes GNG and an SNG is not needed for a pass, but is there interest in hashing out more school-specific guidelines? If so I don't really know the next steps-- maybe a conversation that should happen on my talk page? ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 03:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ LEvalyn: You might try Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) to brainstorm some kind of policy. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep To me it's exceptionally strange that we're debating deleting this in the context of (as I see it) meeting the general notability requirements, plus it being the Global Affairs school of what Canada's biggest and most notable university. I realize that this could seem like original research to say that for those of us who work in global issues this article is blatantly obviously notable, but it's also common sense. Even just the naming of the place (i.e. after the owner of Barrick Gold) is exceptional notable for its controversial juxtaposition. CT55555 ( talk) 03:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    The argument that since the school is named after a notable person, that it must be notable is extremely questionable. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Chess Here's evidence that supports my statement: https://www.foreignpolicy.ca/new-page-93 CT55555 ( talk) 23:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
I'll also highlight the "Canada’s most influential global studies program" bit in there... -- asilvering ( talk) 01:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Chess "even the naming", not "even the name". The controversy itself generated quite a bit of attention in national news and books. (See comment from L above for some more links about that in particular.) -- asilvering ( talk) 01:29, 6 January 2022 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Munk_School_of_Global_Affairs&oldid=1068851097"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. After much-extended time for discussion and robust participation, there is a reasonably clear consensus to keep this article and merge University of Toronto School of Public Policy and Governance into it, no support for outright deletion, and no reason to expect that further relisting would change that result. BD2412 T 01:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Munk School of Global Affairs

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Munk School of Global Affairs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable sub-entities of the University of Toronto. The Toronto Star source is currently the only independent reliable source that covers the Munk school in some detail. The CBC article is WP:ROUTINE coverage of a new director. I searched Canadian Newsstream (Canada newspaper database) and while I could find many quotes in articles from people who work at the Munk School, I couldn't find anything from independent reliable sources about the Munk School itself aside from WP:ROUTINE coverage of directors/professors being hired there. Many press releases though. For the SPPG, I could find no sources on Newsstream either that don't fall into "press release" or WP:ROUTINE coverage of people being hired to teach there. While I didn't dig through more than 4 pages of search results by relevancy or so (the professors get quoted A LOT), I didn't see any evidence of notability in the sample I took. Per WP:NORG, these sources fail WP:SIRS as I could only find one that passes the test for the Munk school. Also note WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, subentities of a university generally aren't notable on their own unless they're especially significant. These seem like somewhat above average public policy programs. While the articles make claims about the competitiveness of the schools and their low student population, I'd rather see a reliable source mentioning how good the school is rather than a primary source being WP:SYNTHed with the original research that good schools have low enrolment to prove that the Munk School is good. The enrolment numbers could be low for other reasons. I decided to bundle these nominations as the schools were merged in 2018 and the SPPG article, despite the name, appears to be mostly written about the merged entity and not the historical entity of the SPPG that was merged with the Munk Centre. I would ask for a delete or redirect because there's really not much sourced content to merge here other than fluff about its history and overwritten puffery about the program. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Note the other page to be deleted is University of Toronto School of Public Policy and Governance (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Yes, I know notability isn't inherited and all that, but take as an example this article, on a laboratory at the Munk School: Citizen Lab. There's an article that in-depth on something that is just part of the Munk School. For another in-wiki comparison, the school is part of the Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs; nearly every member school here has its own Wikipedia page (the ones that don't are almost all in non-Anglophone countries). Compare also the list of partner schools for the MPP program (all with their own articles). As the nominator says, experts from the school are frequently in Canadian media, or the school partners with them outright, example: [1]. Yes, that kind of coverage isn't "independent" in Wikipedia terms, but that seems to me more a guideline designed to prevent self-published puff pieces from being used as major sources. The school's experts are frequently cited in national media, because they are the school's experts. How does that fail to establish the fact that this is a notable institution? If this school were independent of the University of Toronto it would unquestionably be notable, like other major public policy schools; it's in the press more often than most Canadian universities. Here's Maclean's specifically mentioning the Munk School as a particularly acclaimed part of the University of Toronto in its ranking of school reputation: [2]. This isn't some nothing corporation trying to game Wikipedia with a bunch of advertisements and press releases. It's a major Canadian institution. -- asilvering ( talk) 00:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep/Comment: I'm new here, my first time jumping into one of these discussions. I'm jumping in because I have an interest in the topic of global affairs and (at risk of throwing in opinion and original research) the Munk Schoool is obviously important to me, from a common sense perspective of someone who follows global affairs. Also, I recognize that my personal opinions on the matter are based on my human experiences and not wikipedia rules, so if it's more helpful, I'd be happy to try and find quality sources and add them to the article? Would that be helpful, or is this the wrong time to do something like that? CT55555 ( talk) 14:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
@ CT55555 This is exactly the right time to try to improve the article! Many articles are vastly improved during the AfD process. Avoid doing something that looks like a WP:REFBOMB - that doesn't do the article or anyone else any favours. -- asilvering ( talk) 22:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment:Not sure how to categorize and substantiate this AfD. So, I'll refrain from voting. Pinging DGG and Timtrent for an expert's call. - Hatchens ( talk) 06:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge We've been very reluctant to make articles for individual academic departments and institutes, but fairly liberal about quasi-independent med and law schools. The question is what's the nature of this one. The nearest analogies are business schools, where we have sometimes but not always accepted separate articles. I think the key factors are the degree of independence, the extent to which it is widely recognized internationally in its own right, the standing within the ranks of similar schools, the number and prominence of alumni, the extent to which there is encyclopedic content, not just a list of programs and courses, the possibiltles for a non-promotional article, and of course the extent to which references discuss it separately, In this case I notice that over half the content is a mere listing of degrees and courses, and that the university seems to treat it as being capable of merged with other departments. But I also see a controversy of encyclopedic significance, the sort of content about the role of the funder that is likely to attract sources. (I notice however that the section is presently inadequately sourced especially for something inherently politically controversial, with no attempt at NPOV. And the issue arose over 10 years ago, so I'd expect better by now) I see no information about notable faculty or alumni, no information about reputation, no 3rd party sources about anything other than the funding issue and executive transitions. ,
So at this point I think itshould be merged tothe university,withthe possibility of future expansion. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Both to University of Toronto: I note DGG's merge opinion. I am not sure whether they saw the nomination of the second article or not, but it matters little. The Munk article suffers more from being pretty much an advert for a load of courses than does the UoTSPP&G , but neither should exist outside the parent article. Schools/Deparrtments are very unusual if they carry sufficient notability to have separate articles. My view is that they do not FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 07:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    Personally I'm just going to redirect the SPPG article to the Munk School if this gets closed as keep. This is because the SPPG article isn't really about the former SPGP, but is mostly about the Munk School in its present state. That's also why I bundled it in here. Chess( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Chess: I do think it is a good idea to merge and redirect SPPG to the Munk School. I think they essentially share a notability claim. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 01:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    Cosigning this. I see no reason to keep the SPPG article when it can be merged into the Munk School one. -- asilvering ( talk) 02:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    Ok, I've just gone through the SPPG article and moved everything that seemed relevant in to the Munk School article. The only possibly-relevant thing I didn't transfer was the stuff about admissions requirements, which just didn't seem encyclopedic. The things I did transfer would also benefit from some further pruning, sourcing, etc, but seem reasonably useful. If this AfD closes as keep for Munk, I think SPPG should redirect to Munk. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 02:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen Lab which I have opened today as an adjunct to the discussion here. It was obviously far too late to include it in this discussion in any valid manner, but it is a laboratory within this school, within this university FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 07:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It feels a little like non-Canadian editors might assume that if they have not heard of a school, nobody has heard of it, but when something is important in Canada it is important in real life. The University of Toronto is the single largest and most influential school in Canada; it is collegiate university whose sub-schools are often larger and older than full-fledged universities. It is by its nature an unusual school, and therefore not surprising that it might contain many constituent parts which are more notable than similar programs elsewhere, as with the thirty-nine Colleges of the University of Oxford and their halls that all have their own articles. I especially think it is worth paying attention to the frequent and widespread coverage of the Munk school's directors. For example, Globe & Mail 2010, Globe & Mail 2014 with an interview feature, CBC 2019. The nom calls this coverage WP:ROUTINE, but national news organizations like the CBC and Globe & Mail do not routinely cover every new department head for U of T's English department (which I would say is not notable compared to the Munk school); they do not even routinely cover every new dean for smaller universities like Trent University. The fact that the director of the Munk school is considered a consistently newsworthy topic, not just in student papers or local news but nationally, shows that people well outside of the Munk school are taking note of it. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 22:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
It's still WP:ROUTINE coverage for other organizations and I don't see why we're applying a different standard here because WP:ILIKEIT. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Please don’t assume I like the Munk school. My argument is that, although these articles discuss “the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel”, they exceed routine coverage because they are not “standard notices, brief announcements”: even when ordinary professors get hired to the Munk school, the event is covered with independent reporting (not reprinted press releases) of several hundred words. This is also just one kind of coverage that the Munk school has received. There are also the articles about its founding and the Munk donation, and constant coverage of individual research activities and events within it.
Also, for more clarification about U of T as a collegiate institution— U of T literally contains multiple independent universities inside it which grant their own separate degrees, University of Toronto Mississauga and University of Toronto Scarborough. It’s a bit like UNC Charlotte and UNC Chapel Hill? So it applies a false standard to consider UTM or, I argue, the Munk school as being a “department” of U of T. The profs are not called U of T profs (unlike eg the profs in the English department), they are called UTM or Munk School profs. It’s a weird system for sure! But that’s why I think unusual school outcomes would apply. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 19:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I'm not saying that you like the University of Toronto or the Munk School over other universities, but that you're applying a different standard here than for other similarly situated entities because it's a university. The coverage you've provided is pretty much a textbook example of WP:ROUTINE. In fact, routine/trivial coverage is explicitly mentioned in WP:NORG as encompassing coverage "of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel". I'm not really seeing a cogent reason as to why we should ignore that. You've said there's "independent reporting", but the first source you provided is an interview (not independent) & a primary source. The second source reads like a paean to the Munk School/Dr Toope, especially the last few lines in the online version: [3] "Dr. Stein, who will take a sabbatical before returning to teach at the Munk School, describes Dr. Toope as a rare combination of scholar, leader and fundraiser who can excite civil society about a university's work." Is this writer truly neutral/impartial with a line like that? Not to mention it's still just trivial coverage of a staff change with a bunch of flowery prose added about how great the person in question is for the great job at a really great school. The third source you've provided is the same as the first source; not as in that it's also an interview but it's the same interview. And the fourth (CBC) source you provided is just a reprint of this [4] press release.
You say that articles about the Munk School itself that aren't routine coverage exists. I still have not seen any. Where is this "constant coverage" of activities at the Munk School? Because I haven't seen much unless you mean Citizen Lab and the Munk School doesn't WP:INHERITORG notability from that. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 09:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply
on the connection to Peter Munk: discussed in a book front page G&M as mentioned in book [5] [6] [7] [8]
other coverage of founding: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]
analyzing the school: [14]
coverage of school activities/programs: TIFF partnership journalism program direct diplomacy project another donor water program [15] partnership with Delvinia SSHRC grant conference talk dual masters
the book prize they award: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] <-- I stopped but there's coverage every year, always mentioning the talk the winner gives at the Munk School
heads of school: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]
professors hired: [27] [28] [29] [30]
brief mentions: [31] ("the Centre for International Studies... will be absorbed by the expanding Munk School of Global Affairs") [32] history of a building
There is more. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 21:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Oh, some more I had open in tabs: [33] [34] [35] [36] ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 21:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply
And from MacLeans: [37] [38] [39] [40] ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 03:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per LEvalyn. The internal affairs of the Munk School get coverage by RSs in ways that other similar institutions don't. In addition, there was national news coverage of when the initial Munk donation was made and protested by students. Similarly, Citizen Lab, which is also notable and under the Munk School has multiple RS about its activity. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 14:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    Please see WP:INHERITORG. Parent entities don't inherit notability from sub entities. I don't doubt Citizen Lab is notable, but that doesn't make the Munk School notable. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    Thanks you, I'm familiar with INHERITORG. What it actually says, is " A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries" [emphasis added]. This means that if the only coverage by reliable sources a parent entity (i.e. the Munk School) gets is in the context of a notable sub-entity (i.e. Citizen Lab), then the parent entity doesn't automatically become notable on that basis alone and should probably redirect to the sub-entity. This is especially true if such coverage doesn't even bother to mention the parent entity. INHERITORG does not prevent coverage from reliable sources in the context of its connection to the sub-entity from being used to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Citizen Lab is usually referenced in context of its connection to the Munk School [41] [42] [43]. Other aspects of the Munk School also get non-routine coverage, from the elevated treatment of its leadership changes detailed elsewhere in this AFD as well as the controversy over its name, which got coverage in reliable sources then and still gets coverage in academic publication decades afterwards as an example of inappropriate corporate influence in Canadian universities. [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. Together, this is enough to meet WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 02:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per LEvalyn. The Munk School is of considerable notability in Canada and should maintain its article. This is especially evident in the fact that Munk School faculty members (where they are referred to as such rather than as UofT Faculty) are regularly quoted in issues of global affairs and policy, in both Canadian and non-Canadian publications. For example, CBC News 2021 Thejacxb ( talk) 08:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Thejacxb: Please read the WP:NORG requirements on trivial coverage: "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources," do not serve to establish notability. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 03:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to University of Toronto per DDG and Timtrent. I think that's a good alternative to deletion, but there isn't enough in-depth coverage of this out there to justify an individual article. I don't think that people from there are quoted in news stories helps either. Otherwise, make specific articles about those people if they are notable enough to justify one. In the meantime notability isn't inherited and we don't have articles for random places that famous celebrities have worked. Let alone random intellectuals. Merging what's usable is fine though. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 06:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I wonder if an RfC or something is needed to build consensus for a school SNG, more specific than WP:NORG and more binding than WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I have never opened an RfC and don't really know how it works but it seems like there might be a need. For example, I think we all agree that University of Toronto itself is notable, but I can't see how the sourcing on that article is any more satisfactory than what we have for the Munk School: it is all either discussing sub-entities (such as individual programs and professors) which might not be inherited, or it is published by University of Toronto sub-organizations. I think the Munk School passes GNG and an SNG is not needed for a pass, but is there interest in hashing out more school-specific guidelines? If so I don't really know the next steps-- maybe a conversation that should happen on my talk page? ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 03:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ LEvalyn: You might try Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) to brainstorm some kind of policy. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep To me it's exceptionally strange that we're debating deleting this in the context of (as I see it) meeting the general notability requirements, plus it being the Global Affairs school of what Canada's biggest and most notable university. I realize that this could seem like original research to say that for those of us who work in global issues this article is blatantly obviously notable, but it's also common sense. Even just the naming of the place (i.e. after the owner of Barrick Gold) is exceptional notable for its controversial juxtaposition. CT55555 ( talk) 03:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC) reply
    The argument that since the school is named after a notable person, that it must be notable is extremely questionable. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Chess Here's evidence that supports my statement: https://www.foreignpolicy.ca/new-page-93 CT55555 ( talk) 23:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
I'll also highlight the "Canada’s most influential global studies program" bit in there... -- asilvering ( talk) 01:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Chess "even the naming", not "even the name". The controversy itself generated quite a bit of attention in national news and books. (See comment from L above for some more links about that in particular.) -- asilvering ( talk) 01:29, 6 January 2022 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Munk_School_of_Global_Affairs&oldid=1068851097"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE