Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atenean

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 merge to List of Ateneo de Manila University people. I'm going to turn it into a re-direct for now, to make it easier to merge any sourced and relevant material. Jayjg (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atenean

edit
Atenean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not encyclopedic IMHO, and unsourced Melaen (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, the contents of List of Ateneo de Manila University people is wrong. That term connotes members of faculty, staff and people who are part of the administration/infrastructure, whereas Atenean clearly means students and alumni. Creating List of Notable Ateneans and moving some content there. Thanks for the link to the Ateneo-La Salle rivalry article. I didn't know it existed. Adding the link to the article.
  • No, as a Filipino, "Ateneo de Manila Person" sounds completely different from "Atenean". "Ateneo de Manila Person" sounds like faculty/administration/staff. Nobody says "Ateneo de Manila Person" when referring to Ateneans. They say "Atenean". Same thing if you say "De La Salle University Person" or "University of Santo Tomas Person". No one ever says those terms when you talk about students or Alumni. You say La Sallian/La Sallite or Thomasian. If you say "_Name_of_University_ Person/People", it clearly sounds like faculty/administration/staff. I think the confusion here is that you're trying to apply American university conventions, and in those cases it makes sense because there are tons of Universities/Colleges in America's 50 states so it's hard to pin a term on those students/alumni, whereas there are only a few major universities in the Philippines and the terms for their students/alumni have entered the language and have different meanings/attributes tacked onto them by society. Object404 (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as a Filipino who is not an Atenean, "Atenean" means anyone associated from any of the Ateneo schools. Apparently, a Lasallian is different from a Lasallite, so are going to have two separate articles for those? American universities do have terms for anyone associated with it: Indiana University are Hoosiers, USC are Trojans. Although these are not derived from the actual names of the schools themselves, they each have their own culture, how the students ought to behave and their own vision/mission. There's no difference is essence between being a Hoosier and being an Atenean in ADMU. Now if the Ateneans in Quezon City and Davao City have exactly the same Arrneow accent, the same culture, etc. as what has been argued here, and there are third-party references for that, then the article should be kept. If not, and is ultimately the case, then this should be deleted. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again, Atenean goes beyond AdMU and to duplicate the contents of "Atenean" onto every entry of each Ateneo school would not be appropriate. Article currently only has that bit about sports as it's a new article and there aren't enough contributors adding content to it yet.-Object404 (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume being an "Atenean" will be different on the different Ateneo schools just as being a UP student from University of the Philippines Diliman as compared to being a UP student from University of the Philippines Visayas. No duplication there. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there are commonalities that bond all Ateneans together. There are standards that Ateneans are expected to uphold, drilled throughout from grade school to college. They are the same throughout the country -Object404 (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an assertion that you have yet to prove. Rmcsamson (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there are differences between the Ateneo schools throughout the country just like with any school that has many branches as HTD mentioned, but there are common standards & values shared by all of them that make them all Ateneans (sorry for the recursive definition). Can we not make this personal? Your last statement is starting to turn this into a PinoyExchange forum-type discussion. -Object404 (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then tell us what these "commonalities" and "differences" are. And once you have, it may be necessary to distinguish between kinds/subclasses/variations of Ateneans, which will only underscore the fact that the definition used for this article is problematic, in addition to not being up to par as regards the Wikipedia standards of notability and so forth raised earlier. The definition you have raised is recursive, and that is just one of the problems about this article and this discussion. And please, this is hardly being personal. I am simply pointing out what you have failed to establish as the principal proponent of this article's continued existence. Rmcsamson (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. - My principal objection to the article is that the subject matter of the article is in itself not notable, or is at least something that does not meet the standards set in WP:N and WP:NOT. Individual Ateneans are notable, but the term is in and by itself not notable. As pointed out by Howard the Duck, one solution might be a redirect to lists of notable people from the respective universities, or taking the salvageable content, assuming any can be salvaged and properly sourced, and placing it in the respective articles. But that solution doesn't address my objections, and the objections raised by Melaen. This is why even after extensive editing, articles such as the Ateneo de Manila University article do not even cover the subject matter of what Ateneo people are called, because that matter is irrelevant and unnecessary. I also have a problem with how the article has been currently developed, which is to throw possibly popular but ultimately unsourced trivia together (the bits about the jokes, etc.), as well as the obvious slant in relation to Ateneo de Manila University. Rmcsamson (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. Expanded the article a little and added some sourcings (by no means exhaustive). There is a slant towards AdMU because only one person has been updating the article so far. Edited the article further, added some citations. Is it better? You guys will have to pardon the slow pace as I have limited time to contribute edits. Object404 (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been expanded, but it still fails when set against the standards of WP:N and WP:NOT, since the subject matter and the content are irrelevant and non-notable, and therefore have no place in an encyclopedia. As crafted, all this article has is a random smattering of "popular" and yet ultimately unreliable information. It also fails the standard of WP:NPOV. My position that the article should be deleted has not changed.Rmcsamson (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then help improve the article. Just because its current form is not up to standards yet doesn't mean that it should be deleted. The term is significant enough to have entered the Filipino language and carries weight in Filipino culture & society, same as "taga-UP", "la sallista", etc. Those terms are significant enough to have the equivalent weight and connotations in the Philippines as Ivy League does in America.
My position has been to delete the article. I see no use in trying to salvage an article that fails to meet the standards raised, particularly those with regard to notabilty. Rmcsamson (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged the article to further enumerate some of the problems. There are too many specific instances of the occurrences of these problems to mention. However, it remains my position that even if this article is edited, it will still fail the guidelines for notability. Hence, it is still my vote to DELETE this article.Rmcsamson (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the tags. The fact remains that the term is a significant topic of interest in the Philippine society, psyche & culture and merits its own article. Again, since there are a number Ateneo schools that produce notable Ateneans, it would be better to have a single List of Notable Ateneans article than to list all those Ateneans in each individual Ateneo school article.
The term "Atenean" is in and by itself notable? By what standard? According to whom? This is precisely the objection that no amount of embellishment will address. Rmcsamson (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately, the "fact" that it is a significant topic, it can still be merged somewhere such as on the "University Life" section of the ADMU article.
  • Scrutinizing the references, we'd see the Ref #1 is not a valid reference. It must be a third-party reference, same for Refs #4, 5, 6. Ref #2 uses the term "Atenean" in passing and doesn't explain what it is -- it just used it as a placeholder for "People who studied at Ateneo," same for ref #3. Some references (and I dunno if they can even pass WP:RS, some are blogs, PinoyExchange is even cited!) do not even mention the word "Atenean"! Majority of the references are about Ateneans, not what an "Atenean" is. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen AFDs like this were the creator is the only one in favor of keeping so the fate of the article is pretty clear now. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi guys. Consider the concept of La Sallian vs La Sallite: PEx link 1, PEx link 2, blog post talking about it a little, La Sallian guiding principles. The definition I posted was just an arbitrary thing I came up with that might be wrong, so there's probably a difference between an "Ateneo person" and "Atenean" or a plain student/alumni (is a student who was expelled considered an Atenean?). Current definition is rather simplistic as there are ideals an Atenean must aspire to. Consider the article written & published at the Philippine Post by respected columnist & Ateneo-UP-MIT alumnus Larry Henares back in '99: Raul Manglapus, The quintessential Atenean (reposted on a blog - sorry, it's a rather opinionated example and a bit belittling of the other institutions, but that was just a result of quick Googling).

    I've contacted a member of the Ateneo administration to clarify the definition of Atenean so let's hold off until we get the official definition. Yes, I suggest a wikipedia administrator step in as the discussions here have been extremely unbalanced - it's just the three of us talking. Can you guys hold off on the *DELETE* screams until the matter is more thoroughly and rationally discussed by a much larger group as well as the proper authorities? It's rather unfair that this matter becomes the sole discretion of a few individuals. Moreover, you guys haven't given the article the chance to organically shape into the proper format + proper citations & balance it out with content relating to the other Ateneo schools outside of Manila. It's extremely new and as I'm the only person updating it right now (with limited time on my hands), it's going to take time to fix it.
    -Object404 (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know, the Ateneo website is not a scholarly journal. Hence, we can not use that as a reliable source (we can't even use that as a neutral source). Same for blogs, and even valid articles that pass WP:RS with flying colors when it doesn't discuss the matter on hand. I've checked several references and they all deal with the word "Atenean" in passing. For example, we can't use an article as a reference to "Filipino people" on an article solely about Jose Rizal w/o discussion who the Filipino people are. No one's stopping you on editing the Rizal article using books published by Ateneo. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it may very well be that all students of the different Ateneos in the Philippines are all called Ateneans, that does not address the problems raised earlier, namely that the term "Atenean" in and by itself has yet to have its notabilty established, especially in a manner that does not fail WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:NOT, among other concerns. And it will be better to improve lists of people for the different Ateneo campuses instead of insisting on this problematic article. Rmcsamson (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:49, 1 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atenean&oldid=1136113855"