Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The School of Computing (RGU)

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 delete. Bduke 09:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The School of Computing (RGU)[edit]

Belated contest of an article deleted via prod, now restored. Does each school or department of a university get an article? especially without any sources showing any notability apart from the school itself. I don't think this is a good precedent to set: with hundreds or perhaps thousands of universities with dozens to hundreds of departments each, you get the picture. Merge anything sourceable with the university article and then delete. Carlossuarez46 16:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no evidence that this university department is notable per the requirement for significant coverage in reliable third-party sources in WP:N and WP:ORG. As the nominator suggests, anything sourceable can be merged into the university article. Jakew 17:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this particular article doesn't deserve to survive in its present form, and I am sympathetic to the general argument discouraging articles of this kind (even if an improved article managed to scrape through the WP:N and WP:ORG criteria). However, I have two concerns about establishing a general rule.

My first concern is the implication that categories such as Category:Computer science departments would remain incompletely and erratically populated (yes I know WP is not a directory, but still ...). I think it would be a reasonable implication that if we want to discourage articles about departments, we should also discourage categories designed to group such articles, because these categories appear to invite people to seek a pretext to include their own department.

My second concern is based on the observation that many university departments and research units are named after a notable patron, and this gives them a distinct advantage in the notability stakes. If you want to discourage the proliferation of articles about university departments, then how would you feel about the Carlos Suarez School of Something Or Other? (Just kidding.) Seriously, if the policy is to discourage university departments, then this policy should perhaps also apply to university departments that happen to have famous patrons or academics or alumni.

--RichardVeryard 17:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see nothing in the nomination that is a general discouragement of department articles, I just see a suggestion (perfectly reasonable to me) that such departments have to meet WP:NOTE before they get their own article. Also, being named after a famous patron doesn't convey notability, along the lines of WP:NOTINHERITED. I doubt that being patronized by a celebrity or pioneer in the field will encourage significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources if the department isn't earning their own notability. --Darkwind (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The department does not stand on its own, and the entry reads like a catalog - not encyclopedic. MarkBul 18:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The opening of 'Our career-ready graduates benefit from degree programmes' reeks of spam and copyvio. Regardless, as already stated a department has to esablish notability in its own right to warrant an article, which this does not acheive. Nuttah68 18:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because just about any school can have notability due to the number of students who attend it over time. With that said, the article should be revised to read less like an add and also more neutral third-party sources should be added. This article can and should be improved instead. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Though called a "school" this seems the equivalent of an US department (in the US, "schools" are usually major divisions of a university comprising many departments, and often fit subjects for articles if in the major universities.) Looking at the articles in the category, some (such as Carnegie Mellon) would appear to justify articles, others (such as DePaul) would not. There's been discussion on this before, and the level of the bar does not really have a consensus yet. This AfD is perhaps a good way to get some idea of it. My preferences would be world-class, the acknowledged top dozen of so internationally known departments--but I recognize the difficulties in finding a suitable standard for this. DGG (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think this article could be easily merged into the RGU article without making it too long or cluttered. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I can see nothing in this article that would really merit sourcing and merging, per Carlossuarez46, but I would not object to a neutral, sourced paragraph being inserted at Robert Gordon University. The article in its current state reads like an obvious vanity page to me. — mholland (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyvio (see this). And in any case, there does not appear to be any independent notability for the school. -- Whpq 20:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree that our own article reads like an advertisement we are looking to rewrite it in a more neutral format. I fail too see why a department has to be notable to be kept alive. As computing as a subject in the UK is suffering as numbers are continuously dropping schools and universities have to find new ways of getting themselves noticed; whether that be on Wikipedia, Myspace or anywhere to convince potential students that the subject is not dull and uninteresting. I was interested to note last week that the Scottish CS Recruitment & Outreach mailing list for ComputingScotland noticed and applauded our efforts to "put ourselves out there" as they put it. Don't let the effort go to waste, give us time to rewrite the document and let us stay. Colin Beagrie, Systems Manager, School of Computing RGU 10:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgu computing (talk • contribs)
delete just because of that-shows it is meant to be an advert right there. Chris 12:47, 23 September 2007 (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.