Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purdue University College of Veterinary Medicine

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 Purdue University#Academics. All are welcome to discuss potential splits and sources on the parent institution's talk page. czar 02:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purdue University College of Veterinary Medicine

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

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

Subject does not appear to be independently notable (notability is not inherited from the parent institution) ElKevbo (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related articles for the same reason:

ElKevbo (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as they are valid splits from the main article Purdue University which is too large to house all this information so negating the possibility of a merge. These split articles do not have to be independently notable from the main article which is obviously notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there aren't sufficient sources to establish that the subjects are notable then they shouldn't have their own article regardless of the size of the university's article. Notability is not inherited and we don't make exceptions to WP:GNG for constituent units of otherwise notable institutions. ElKevbo (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would say they are notable in conjunction with the university and that notability is not inherited does not apply to splits from a main article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our information page about "article splitting" explicitly says that splitting should be done "only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia." ElKevbo (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remerge all Looking at hte actual articles, they are so short (generally 3 rathe brief paragraphs), that they'd fit very nicely into the main article. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remerge all but the College of Veterinary Medicine, I have long felt that most of these sort of articles on bureaucratic subdivisions of undergraduate colleges are useless. Vet schools are graduate level. Abductive (reasoning) 21:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware that "graduate level" schools are inherently notable or exempt from WP:GNG. Where is that documented? ElKevbo (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remerge all. None of these articles, as they currently stand, are based on significant coverage from independent sources, and for the most part all the references are to Purdue itself. As such, these pages are essentially promotional in nature and they don't warrant to be split from the main article, regardless of their length. I see no difference between undergraduate and graduate bureacratic subdivisions in this regard. If there is some substantive coverage of the veterinary college by independent sources, then that page could be kept. But at the moment that article has 7 sources, of which 5 are to Purdue itself, one is a school ranking list, and only one [1], a rather brief report about the name change from "school" to "college", would seem to qualify as an independent WP:RS substantive source. That's not enough to justify a stand-alone article. Nsk92 (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]
weak keep Not a ton of sources--searching is actually quite hard because this topic shows up *so* much in non-independent news. But yes, it seems like a reasonable breakout article and there are sources like [2]. Hobit (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm skeptical that there are independent sources that provide significant coverage of these subjects. I think the onus is on those who believe that such sources do exist - and, of course, the easiest way to do that is to explicitly name those sources. (I'm not picking on these specific colleges or Purdue; this is the case for most colleges, departments, and offices at U.S. universities.) ElKevbo (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2020 (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.