Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Department of Computer Science and Engineering (University of Minnesota)

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 University of Minnesota . MBisanz ^talk 03:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Computer Science and Engineering (University of Minnesota)

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

Separate department that does not show any sourcing that would have notability. I would not be opposed to a redirect to the University but I do believe it fails notability standards as is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point about souring is correct and I do agree that the article should be sourced. I however do note that the article does meet the standard for notability since many less famous computer science departments have articles on Wikipedia. Here are some examples:

And the list goes on.Vonaurum (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm completely off base and there is a consensus that they are notable by default (A hasty and sweeping generalization in my opinion) feel free to close. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the parent university article unless evidence of independent notability for this department can be found, as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges. AllyD (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Departments are not generally notable. All or most of the others cited should probably be deleted too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Minnesota per AllyD. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Minnesota per above. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel mostly the same way about the other articles that you've posted. I'd suggest tagging them all to merge into the respective articles for their unniversities. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning toward a keep vote, mainly because of the department's notable contributions to the Gopher protocol, its ranking in the Top 100 QS World University Rankings, and its research lab GroupLens Research. I'm not 100% sure if this makes the department notable, though, so I wouldn't have a fit if someone were to merge this to University of Minnesota College of Science and Engineering. I'd be most entertained, though, if someone were to do a spoken article of this in a thick, incomprehensible accent, which you could only listen to after waiting in a long registration line at Fraser Hall and hoping that the class hasn't filled up already. Ah, fond memories of my undergraduate days. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand how deletion of this article would be worthwhile. The gopher protocol holds enough significance that the dept. deserves it's own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halai (talk • contribs) 04:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The practical criterion is normally among the most famous in the world. We normally apply notability criteria very strictly to subdivisions of notable organizations, and for good reason. To the limited extent that the QS ratings are reliable for it, they show lack on notability for this department: it isn't even in the top 50. I note that it is precisely famous departments that we generally do not have articles on, probably because nobody feels the need to promote them. With respect to the discoveries at this department, it is not one or two notable discoveries that make for either fame or notability, or else all major departments of all major universities would be notable. We could write about the subject that way, and if it were decided to do so on a consistent basis, I might very possibly support it, but if we are going to be selective, we should be selective rationally. The article on the Group lens lab is I think unjustified; the article should be on Group Lens, and if any one wants to edit out the overdetailed material about the group and move it I will certainly support it. With respect to the other departments llisted, I would and will argue for the deletion of every one of them, though I do not want to confuse the issue of deleting this particular article by doing so until this AfD is finished. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 7 December 2012 (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.