Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCL Faculty of Engineering Sciences: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:49, 16 October 2010

UCL Faculty of Engineering Sciences

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

Nothing more than a list of links to departments, no indication that it is "especially notable or significant" as per Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines. Prod which was contested without comment. RadioFan (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources may easily be found such as this, which covers the topic in detail and tells us that it has a high research rating. Or that which covers the topic in detail and tells us about its methods of teaching engineering. The topic is therefore notable and it is our editing policy to keep such material. The guidelines of the project mentioned are not such an official guideline or policy and so have no standing here. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first link is to a single paragraph in a college guide which appears to include all colleges. Comprehensive directories like this dont do much to establish notability. We dont use phone books as references for similar reasons. The second link does mention the topic but I'm still not seeing this rising to the level demanded by WP:SIGCOV, specifically because this university department isn't addressed directly by the reference, its only a brief, passing mention.--RadioFan (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well firstly this as pointed out is just a glorified directory listing, however the second one is actually not about the UCL in London but about Université catholique de Louvain. The give away is if you use the "Search this book" feature for "London" the only 9 hits are in lists of references. Codf1977 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable constituent academic department, the links provided do not show any significant coverage of the department - UCL is clearly notable, its departments are not necessarily. What next articles on departments of FTSE 100 companies. Codf1977 (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links provided satisfy the definition of WP:SIGCOV and so your comment is counterfactual. I don't see what the FTSE 100 has to do with it but that observation is counterfactual too. For example, the Financial Times and the FTSE 100 both have separate articles even though they are wholly-owned properties and departments of Pearson PLC. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No they do not, and comment is not counterfactual - my point is are we going to have articles on the BP Engineering department for example. This is not a separate legal entity it is part of UCL. Codf1977 (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see template:BP for our articles about the divisions of that company. Whether such bodies are legal entities or not is quite irrelevant to our coverage as it is not our policy to structure our articles according to company law. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this is just a sub section of a larger body which shows no signs of being notable or significant in its own right. Codf1977 (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments continue to be counterfactual. For another source, please see chapter 8 which has much to say about the facilities, history and staff of this institution. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references and external links provided in the article are all primary ones, I'm not seeing how this satisfies WP:SIGCOV.--RadioFan (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The links provided in the discussion above are to secondary sources. I have not yet added these to the article as we are here primarily to discuss the article, not to work upon it. Per our editing policy, you should please evaluate the article's potential rather than its current state. It is still an early draft - not yet a month old - and has only been worked on by a novice editor. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:1Particularly5 am, Today (UTC−4)

That is what is being done here. Evaluating the topic based on available references and possibility of expansion of the article to bring it up to notability standards. Just not seeing how this topic can meet notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Same reason as (User:Colonel Warden) - Humaliwalay (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

and what might that be ? that coverage about an unrelated university in a totally different country was thourght to be about this one ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This "article" (using the term loosely) breaks so many policies/guidelines that I don't even see how deletion could be questioned. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per Col. Warden: is essentially a stub, but needs to be expanded, not deleted. CrazyPaco (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how do you see this meeting notability guidelines?--RadioFan (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response IMO, Col. Warden's arguments are already more than sufficient. The discussion should have been over when he linked the academic report of its engineering teaching methodology. However, even without the coverage in the independent, 2nd party publications which he has already provided, the article topic is a major, internationally regarded engineering faculty that at least has common sense notability per alternate criteria for non-commercial organizations in the contexts of academia, engineering, and the city of London. A Times of London archive search alone results in over 1400 hits alone for "University College London" engineering, so I don't believe it is a reach to assume it has sufficient independent coverage in it or the the dozens of other 2nd party newspapers and publications based in London. No doubt, the article is a stub and needs to be cleaned up and expanded, and it should be tagged appropriately for those issues. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but as above the link that you claim settles it is actually not about the UCL in London but about Université catholique de Louvain. As for the hits number you quote there is zero indication that they will be about the Faculty of Engineering Sciences, nor do I think it can be assumed they are. Codf1977 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it is and shame on me for not noticing that above. That still doesn't change my overall opinion of the faculty's notability. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice it at first, but without the refs to support it, how can you conclude it is notable. Codf1977 (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've already answered that above, but there is additional coverage (as is in this book here, not to mention the other book on this history of the university) and, as I said, it is not a huge assumption that there is more. It is an active, established, substantially sized research engineering faculty that covers a myriad of disciplines. It is a natural break-out article to main UCL one, but needs to be cleaned up and expanded. CrazyPaco (talk)

In both cases those are written by non-independent authors and are not suitable for determining nobility. Codf1977 (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the science community considers it notable, then its notable. They are the ones to make a decision about this sort of thing. Ample coverage as well. Dream Focus 19:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide refs to show that ? Codf1977 (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an article for every department. They are all very similar articles to the one been nominated, except UCL Faculty of Laws and is also the only one which seems notable. Mattg82 (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. They should all be redirected to the Uni's article. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an article for each of the eight faculties, very few departments (of which there are far more) have an article.194.75.238.104 (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^communicate 23:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable link farm. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, which is exactly what this article is. A redirect back to the university article might be appropriate, but the individual department faculties do not pass WP:GNG. All of them should be redirected/deleted. SnottyWong ^communicate 23:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I have removed the inappropriate external links from all of these articles. SnottyWong ^prattle 00:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The appropriateness of the links is a separate issue from notability. We are not judging the quality of the article here. It is clearly a stub that needs work. The topic we are discussing is a long established (over 100 years) publishing research faculty that is the subject of (at least) two independently produced book chapters (here and here). It also gets hundreds of Times of London archive search hits, which is subscription based, but I assume at least one or two is appropriately covering the subject. This UCL faculty is also noted for initiating training in the field of chemical engineering. How does that not pass notability guidelines? I see every one of the criteria (significant coverage; reliable, independent, secondary sources; verifiability) as being satisfied. Which one(s) is not? We are not talking about merging a stub back to a parent, we are talking about Afd. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first book makes only passing referances to "Faculty of Engineering" nothing of any substance, the second book does not mention "Faculty of Engineering" once and is more about UCL than the Faculty of Engineering. So still looking for any significant coverage on the Faculty of Engineering. Codf1977 (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Both chapters are completely devoted to the history of UCL engineering ...that is the Faculty of Engineering. CrazyPaco (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, however that is a moot point, as to be WP:SIGCOV they have to be produced by independent sources and in both cases the authors are not independent. Codf1977 (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has many more than two sources and so your point is moot. Your theory is, in any case, not what is is said by WP:SIGCOV nor is it what is meant as it would lead to the absurd conclusion that a history of America would not be accepted as independent if it were written by an American historian. You need to have some overt reason to discount intellectual independence, not a vague insinuation. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like the authors of the section working for UCL ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a followup - can you please detail here what links you think now show WP:SIGCOV as it is not clear. All the ones listed on this page have been shown not to be and of the ones one the article page that I have looked at none discusses the Faculty in any detail. Codf1977 (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources cited seem satisfactory for our purposes and the article itself thus serves as a good list. In judging the quality of these sources according to our general practise, it may help to compare with another article such as Matthew Yusuf Smith — a BLP which you created and still maintain. We observe that much of the content of that article is sourced to the blog written by the subject himself. Most of the other sources seem equally dubious. Please see The Golden Rule. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing the validity of the sources in the article, I freely accept that self published sources or sources close to the subject can be used in the article, just not for demonstrating notability. As I said, however, can you please list the sources that show significant coverage of the Faculty, it is mine and others contention that they do not exist. Codf1977 (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC) point about article I have created, not appropriate for here so addressed on User talk:Colonel Warden[reply]

Delete The nominator seems to have this right, and as it stands, this article has no independent sourcing since all but one source is from the university itself. AniMate 15:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is self-contradictory in that you acknowledge an independent source and then say there there are none. More sources are being found and have now been added to the article and so your comment is now even more counterfactual. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Each of the books linked above ([1] and [2] for the avoidance of doubt about which ones I'm referring to) has a chapter about the subject, so has significant coverage, is from a major academic publisher, so is reliable, and is independent of UCL. All of the requirements of the general notability guideline, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", have therefore been met. I would advise anyone who claims that these chapters are not about the article subject to actually read the sources rather than search for a specific phrase. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've read them and disagree with you. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then what are those chapters about, if not this article's subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They may as you say be published by a major academic publisher, but as are of no use in determining notability as the authors of those sections are not independent of UCL. Codf1977 (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, independence requires that authors not be talking about themselves, as in an autobiography, or that the material should not be promotional in nature, such as an advertisement. Neither of these considerations apply here. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But they are talking about the organisation they work for. Codf1977 (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the case for all sources. In any case, it is common for experts to be intimately associated with their subject. This is not a problem provided that there is editorial oversight and if they have professional reputations for accuracy and good ethics to maintain. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a bit more to the history section.194.75.238.104 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there are articles on the departments, is there any reason why information shouldn't be merged there?--RadioFan (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are ten different departments in this faculty. If we break the information down to that level then we will still need this article to provide a framework or structure within which to cover each department. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this article be needed? Notable things such as the first Professor of Engineering can be well covered in that person's bio article and the department's article. Summarizing information like this in yet another article seems like over-coverage. A "framework" is not necessary.--RadioFan (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles form a natural hierarchy or web. The titles such as this one's are useful search terms and so assist navigation. As more sources are discovered, information is slotted into its natural place. In this way, the encycyclopedia grows and is made comprehensive. Deleting elements, as you suggest, is disruptive to this and there is nothing to be gained. As the article already exists, it is you that must make a case to remove it. I'm not seeing one. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 ::::::* As a followup - can you please detail here what links you think now show [[WP:SIGCOV]] as it is not clear. All the ones listed on this page have been shown not to be and of the ones one the article page that I have looked at none discusses the Faculty in any detail. [[User:Codf1977|Codf1977]] ([[User talk:Codf1977|talk]]) 11:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 :::::::*  All the sources cited seem satisfactory for our purposes and the article itself thus serves as a good list.  In judging the quality of these sources according to our general practise, it may help to compare with another article such as [[Matthew Yusuf Smith]] &mdash; a BLP which you created and still maintain.  We observe that much of the content of that article is sourced to the blog written by the subject himself.  Most of the other sources seem equally dubious.  Please see [[The Golden Rule]]. [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 11:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
+:::::::: I am not disputing the validity of the sources in the article, I freely accept that self published sources or sources close to the subject can be used in the article, just not for demonstrating notability. As I said, however, can you please list the sources that show significant coverage of the Faculty, it is mine and others contention that they do not exist. [[User:Codf1977|Codf1977]] ([[User talk:Codf1977|talk]]) 11:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC) <small>point about article I have created, not appropriate for here so addressed on [[User talk:Colonel Warden]]</small>
 *'''Delete''' The nominator seems to have this right, and as it stands, this article has no independent sourcing since all but one source is from the university itself. <font face="Herculanum" color="black">[[User talk:AniMate|AniMate]]</font> 15:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 :* Your comment is self-contradictory in that you acknowledge an independent source and then say there there are none.  More sources are being found and have now been added to the article and so your comment is now even more counterfactual. [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 19:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)