Jump to content

Talk:Adelphi University/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wikifiy

I am removing the Wikify notice as it seems that the edit by StopTheFiling has has made the article satisfactory. L. Pistachio 06:04, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Pro-Adelphi Bias

I agree. The school, physically is a dump! Buildings, dorms, etc. are depressing and substandard!! Nothing to offer! Most academic programs are mediocre; (I.E.- Nursing and business are sub-par (at best).)Is the business school AACSB accredited?? If not, why bother attending? I implore whoever wrote this (probably an Adelphi employee) to cut the nonsense and be realistic. Does not come close to offering the academics/facilities that I.E.-Hofstra, Stonybrook offer (I use these two universities as examples because Adelphi was compared to them on the wikipedia article page). Prominent alumni/alumni support is nill. Endowment is miniscule. Does Adelphi have a Phi Beta Kappa Chapter, the most prominent collegiate honor society? Hofstra and Stonybrook do. Does Adelphi offer state of the art swimming facilities, gyms, tracks, etc for students? Hofstra and Stonybrook do. Division II sports (although minor, if potential students want a well rounded college experience, don't expect to see any well known school/universities coming to play against Adelphi. You will not see Notre Dame, Johns Hopkins, Princeton, United States Military Academy, Harvard, etc play at Adelphi. However, you will see them on the campus' of Stonybrook and Hofstra.) Do yourself a favor, if you do not believe me, visit Adelphi. Then stop by Hofstra University and see the difference. Also, drop by Stonybrook and see how much more they offer. See for yourself.

I removed the content from that site, as copyrighted material isn't allowed verbatim. The original edit, a text dump as shown here, was simply integrated into the article. ErikNY 17:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Adelphi University, Robert B. Willumstad School of Business, does have AACSB accreditation as of April 2013. See http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/docs/accredited-schools-032013.pdf. Peter Greenberg (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Please provide reference to "New York Magazine's" claim, google searches have turned up with nothing.

Omission in history?

Is there any reason the article mentions nothing of the financial woes Adelphi incurred thanks to its corrupt former president? SliceNYC 00:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


I agree that there needs to be more information about the lawsuit and the scandals. This is one of the largest scandals in Non-profit history and there is nothing in this article about it. 10:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

How should it be decided who qualifies as a notable alum? Someone recently added Martha Cooley, a faculty member who has two published novels. If we were to start adding ALL of the alum who have authored a novel, the page would probably have a couple hundred names on it. Shouldn't notable alum have some sort of name general name recognition or some standard such as "new york times best seller" or have an elected position, for example? Euphorya 21:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The generally accepted standard is the existence, or failing that the realistic probability, of a viable Wikipedia article. See WP:N and WP:RED. If there are many viable articles in existence they can be extended to a separate page. If there are many viable articles listed which are not in existence, they should be created :) It has also been suggested that names which would not make viable articles should sometimes be listed, unlinked. But there should always be at least an independent reference to support the inclusion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I've done a little research on the "alum" in question. A google search revealed that she's a graduate of Trinity College, not Adelphi. See this link: http://academics.adelphi.edu/artsci/creativewriting/cooley.php

The anonymous user who has been adding that author's name to Wikipedia has also been adding it to the following pages: Mikhail Bulgakov and Bennington Vt pages. Although they may have been good-intentioned edits, they are obviously personal (ie family or friend) in nature. Euphorya 00:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I recently removed the following links from this article:

The first link is not terribly useful but I could see its inclusion. However, it should almost certainly be used as a reference and not an external link. The second link just doesn't add any particularly novel information to this article as it's too narrow in scope. In fact, it's not even about this institution at all!

I also removed the information in the article about Adelphi's participation in NAICU's accountability initiative. It's brand new and not particularly notable. Further, it's clear from the manner in which the information was shotgunned into a whole bunch of articles with an external link in violation of our relevant policy that it's promotional in nature.

Finally, I remind my anonymous friend that the "[[WP:V|the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.]" WP:V is one of our core policies and it represents widespread consensus among most Wikipedia editors with applicability for all articles. Reverting someone's edits because "the information has been there for a while" is not acceptable or defensible, particularly when that reversion blindly and blithely conflates controversial and non-controversial edits. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removing the two links, but I disagree with removing the NAICU information. 67.177.155.250 (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, sourcing is expected by the other editors who have removed your addition of the NAICU information. Please oblige. Kukini háblame aquí 14:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have added a source for the statement. 67.177.155.250 (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My objection is not that the statement is unsourced and I hope that you are planning to address my specific concerns laid out above.
I also expect that you're going to address the concerns above regarding the other two links, particularly the one that is unrelated to this institution. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not recent, the NAICU has been around since 1976, so that's a non-point. It has several hundred collegate members and is mentioned in business journals, school guides, the US Dept. of Ed website, Reuters, USAToday, etc... so noatability is also a non-point. I don't see the problem with the external link as it also links to the Wikipedia article on NAICU and the website is listed as a source. I fail to see how it's promotional in nature, the text in question is strictly factual. Also, what "other" two links are you discussing? If you are referring to the two links you included at the beginning of this section I have already adressed that. Read what I previously wrote more closely. 67.177.155.250 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Promotional lead

The lead is dedicated more right now to providing flattering information about the university than providing the most important information. --Jprg1966 (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Adelphi University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adelphi University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Italics?

It is not at all clear to me why some buildings listed in the "Main Halls" section are italicized and others aren't. No explanation is provided in the article, either, as far as I can see. If someone has a valid reason, then I recommend including it in the article. If there is no valid reason, then all buildings should be presented in the same type. 2604:2000:EFC0:2:741E:AD4E:20E7:E5C (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Heck, Wikipedia wants editors to be proactive, so I removed the italics myself. If anyone wants to revert, please include an explanation in the article so people aren't confused. 2604:2000:EFC0:2:741E:AD4E:20E7:E5C (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Great. So, it started here, but I doubt that editor will ever be back. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adelphi_University/Archive_1&oldid=1170928071"