Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McMaster Integrated Science

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 McMaster University. NW (Talk) 19:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McMaster Integrated Science

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

Non-notable Undergraduate program at a university. Links given in the page do not show notability. I can't find any evidence for notability on the net either Raziman T V (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: notability is subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.38.225 (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am confused to why there are issues with notability. On the official website (cited under references)( there is a video explaining exactly what makes this program unique and why it is relevant as a special program: http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/isci/component/content/article/289. Outside of internal promotion, there has been published articles in the Hamilton Spectator, and the program has had conference appearance in education seminars for integrated learning, and is scheduled to appear in more (such as the Combining two Cultures). In addition to all of this, journal entries will appear. There is no shortage of notability currently, and it will only increase in the future. If there is an issue with referencing, I am not too familiar with the standard Wikipedia set-up, and would appreciate help in understanding where citations and footnotes are necessary. (Prateek (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:NOTABILITY. There are no third-party reliable sources as it can be seen in this search. Armbrust (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge into the article for the University. We almost never have articles for individual curricula or programs of this sort, but it's worth the mention. Alternatively merge with McMaster Arts and Sciences an article I think unjustified on the same grounds, but where a book happens to have been written about it as an example of a program, and so we would keep it by the current interpretation of WP:GNG. In this case, there are not only no books, but no independent material of any sort. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into McMaster University, watch out for peacock words such as "exclusive" while doing so. I would suggest that the McMaster Arts and Sciences program page is also of dubious noteability. I'm sure they're both fine programs, but both articles suffer from a lack of citeable material. Random name (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As this program is known as "McMaster iSci" not only colloquially, but officially, I think the article should be renamed to this, and its 'searchability' should be assessed under this name instead as well Prateek (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to an article about the school. As DGG says, we generally don't have articles about individual curricula, except on rare occasion where the program is so unusual or innovative as to have a sufficient body of third-party published literature examining it (by which I mean, books or scholarly studies, not local newspaper puff pieces). This program doesn't appear to meet that standard. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2010 (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.