Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architecture, SUST

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 redirect to Shahjalal_University_of_Science_and_Technology. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture, SUST

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

Fork from the article Shahjalal University of Science and Technology. The department is not exceptionally notable to merit its own article. The article itself is written like a brochure, complete with "Philosophy" and "Faculty list". The department fails WP:N ... it is not independently notable in Bangladesh or elsewhere. There is no reason why the actual info (after you take out the faculty roster and "philosophy") cannot be handled in the university page. I had redirected the article to the university page, but the creator insists on reverting that. So, I'm proposing deletion per WP:N. Ragib (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the partent article, per nomination. No other member of Category:Architecture schools in Bangladesh has a separate article for its architecture department. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 10:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, no other architecture school is separately functioning from the university as how Architecture, SUST is. --Rossi —Preceding undated comment added 09:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

How so? The department website clearly states that it is an academic department of the university. So, your claim doesn't hold water. I also just noticed that you plagiarized large chunks of text from the university's website and added to the article. In any case, independent notability of the department has not been established ... all the current content can be merged to the university article. --Ragib (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid argument, Rossie, as per Ragib. » nafSadh did say 12:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Sir JJ College of Architecture and Department of Architecture, Oxford Brookes University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossi (talk • contribs) 09:00, 12 June 2011

Take a look at Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - that is not a valid argument to prevent this article from being deleted. If you feel the Oxford article needs to be deleted it then propose it. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example Rossi! Sir JJ College of Architecture is a separate body. » nafSadh did say 12:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete not notable enough to have a separate article and shall be covered withing the scope of parent university. » nafSadh did say 12:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - hardly a strong delete then. If we are to cover the department then we need to merge content back so deletion breaches our GFDL licence. TerriersFan (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not GFDL violation. Coz this article in question can not be source of information (it have no encyclopedic content at all), if we cover the department in universities scope - we'll have to write freshly. » nafSadh did say 20:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back. Obviously not separately notable but there have been no valid arguments for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify plz! if not separately notable why we even need a redirect? » nafSadh did say 20:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for the rather obvious reason that redirects help readers find information within larger articles and it is wholly normal to redirect to sections within pages on more notable topics. TerriersFan (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the accreditation niblet and notable faculty members with SUST article, delete the rest, which is wholly run-of-the-mill, and promotional to boot. Brammers (talk/c) 14:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Notability is not inherited. No information is cited.Rogerthat94 (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2011 (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.