Talk:Roger Hadfield Ogden Honors College

Sourcing

I am happy to see that an editor has flagged the lack of third-party sources for this article. It is important to ensure the integrity of articles on this site as best as possible. I submit, however, that because the LSU Honors College is relatively new and because published information about the program usually only comes from the University, it is difficult to obtain third-party resources. Great care was taken not to include information directly written by the Honors College staff itself (except in the case where admissions standards were enumerated). Furthermore, multiple sources were referenced to verify dates and very basic historical information that, in the end, are far from controversial and are at least worth compiling here because they do not exist in any other compiled form known to this author. If there are disputes about specific details in the article, I pray that those will be pointed out. Otherwise, I hope that it is permissible to remove the tag about the third-party sources.--Jsmi128 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• As I said in my edit summary, most colleges and universities have honors colleges. Typically, these are where they put the smart kids. I see nothing in this article that makes this honors college notable among its peers. With the tag, or without the tag, the article can be nominated for deletion at any time. AnteaterZot (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• The fact that there are many examples of some general type of thing does not render the specific examples inconsequential. If indeed the point that there are a number of honors colleges is more notable, then a general article should be created for all honors colleges with links to the specific examples. This seems to be more in line with the purpose of Wikipedia: the proliferation of informative and interconnected articles about an ever-expanding range of topics. After an admitted cursory search for other articles about honors colleges, I find no similar disputes or tags about a lack of "notability." And I also have not found any information in those articles that suggests those colleges are more notable than this one. Except for news articles about those schools in the moment, it is difficult to find sources that are not influenced by or published by the academic institution.--Jsmi128 (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• A second point about the reliability of third-party sources involves the issue that universities are often the publishers of primary sources about topics. Furthermore, the histories of universities are written by those who attended or are affiliated with those schools. The information about many schools and their programs is often published directly by those schools or with great influence on behalf of stakeholders with an interest in those schools (i.e., alumni).--Jsmi128 (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think there are two points in contention here. One is about third-party sources, to which the tag refers. The second is an issue of notability. Granted they do have some relation, but in the end, it is important not to confuse the two and muddle the discussion.--Jsmi128 (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps I didn't make myself clear; I don't care if you remove the tag, but that won't fix the article's problem. Without outside sources, the article will eventually be deleted. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'll do my best to see to it that more sources are added.--Jsmi128 (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)