Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)[edit]
-
UAB School of Dentistry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
-
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP: N. PROD removed without sufficient sourcing improvements. The sources are lists which can't be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Weak keep - first a note to the nominator: deletion discussions are about the subject, not the article. It seems to me that the claim sourced to the school of being a pioneer in development of four-handed dentistry is true, that fact would be sourcable to a book on the history of dentistry. WP:BEFORE requires the nominator of an article for deletion to do reasonable research into the subject prior to nomination and specifically mentions that a Google search is not enough. So, did you read any books on the history of dentistry? If reliable independent sources can be found for that bit, my keep would no longer be weak. Second, if it cannot be independently verified after real research, WP:ATD tells us that this title should be a redirect to the university, not a delete. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
You're free to go look for a book that may or may not exist. The onus is on you to bring sources forward that would improve the article. Nominators need only conduct a WP: BEFORE search, which I already completed. Anything else is a massive waste of time for nominators. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
I am okay with a redirect as an alternative to deletion. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Keep Obviously, this nominator is trolling at my edits. Sources are weak but can be added eventually. He probably has some connections with other schools lol!
-
"this nominator is trolling" is an ad hom. It's not a valid keep rationale. I don't have any conflicts of interest to declare. In fact, it's common for users to nominate several related articles at once. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
then why not nominate other school/colleges pages that has lesser sources, you are only targeting my pages Juicy fruit146 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
That's not appropriate. You should peobably read the instructions for participation at AfD linked at the top of the page. WP:AGF is a pillar policy and not optional. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
DeleteorMerge When searching around, I could not find anything special about this school except that it exists for 75+ years. Article is filled with run of the mill info over the school, based on related sources. Sources seem to be mostly social media. So deletion is the best option but a merge into the university is also an option. The Banner talk 23:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
UAB School of Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
-
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP: N. PROD removed without sufficient sourcing improvements -- the sourcing on the article is either primary or database entries. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Keep I already added secondary sources. It has met WP: N criteria. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
First, this Keep vote is from the article's creator. Second, the only secondary source that I see that could establish notability is the Jones article. Unfortunately, it appears to be a rephrasing of a UAB announcement, which is a primary source. It also isn't clear to me whether Jones is reliable in the first place. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
why are you always doubting my sources, it is already on clear that my sources are reliable. Are you trying to delete all my pages? It seems you're targeting my pages. This page is already a criteria for nobility. No need to delete. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
I want to make it clear that whether a source is secondary and whether it can be used to establish notability are two different questions. WP: GNG describes several criteria for whether a source can be used to establish notability. You are right that there are secondary sources in the article. However, those sources can't be used to establish notability. The Shipley article isn't about the school -- it is about an invention by people who happen to be affiliated with UAB Engineering. Since the coverage isn't direct, it can't establish notability. The issue with the Jones article remains unaddressed. The remainder are lists or directories that cannot be used to establish notability.
-
I'm not targeting "your pages" (whatever that means, considering that no user really "owns" any page outside of their userspace). In any case, AfD is not the appropriate venue to address such a claim. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
I'll add more secondary sources until you gave up! The article is about the school that created the invention. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
The article is about the school that created the invention.
-
The article is titled "UAB engineering students create walker to aid Children’s of Alabama patients". It's about an invention -- it's not about the school. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Redirect - to the University's main article per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:Redirects are cheap and WP:ATD. The article about the walker is from an unreliable website that relies on user contributions. The story about the new building is WP:ROUTINE and does not speak to notability at all. Further, I agree with the nominator that it appears to be written off a press release, making it also not independent. A good general rule of thumb is law schools and medical schools usually qualify for an independent article; the other subschools that make up a university don't, barring some serious coverage of some of their research in books, magazines or journals. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Redirecting is an option per WP:ATD, or should this be kept? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Comment: "or should this be kept?" The Keep vote doesn't adequately address the rationale for nomination. I'm also comfortable with a redirect. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Redirect and Merge: Sources are pretty patchy and a lot of them are to the university (and its news), local fraternities, etc.. While is a secondary source for the invention, I don't see any reason why the content in this article can't be a section in the main university article: even if there were more non-university-affiliated non-self-published secondary sources to pull content from, probably it would still fit merged. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Collat School of Business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
-
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP: N. The only sources on the articles are either primary, databases, or closely match the wording of a primary source. PROD was removed without sufficient sourcing improvements. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
To clarify, I'm not opposed to sourcing improvements that would establish notability. This AfD merely describes the state of the article when it was dePRODed. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Redirect - to the University. Barring unique circumstances, the general consensus has always been that law schools and medical schools get articles and other sub-schools get a redirect or nothing at all. See SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There is nothing here and nothing rising to the level of GNG that I could find to indicate this school is an exception to the general consensus. If this article was about a business rather than a business school, it would be an A7 CSD. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Redirect - to the main UABpage. Sources used are primarily primary, and in digging, I was unable to pull any that meet WP: N. Obviously, just because I wasn't able to find those those kinds of sources isn't definitive, however, I understand the preferred treatment, if warranted, is to build out a supporting UAB academics page. The Academics section of the main UAB page would be the where the editor would want to start placing this information MertenMerten (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Keep I already added secondary sources. It has met WP: N criteria. Also, it avoids confusion with the business school at University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.Juicy fruit146 (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
I already added secondary sources.
-
Those sources are databases or closely match the wording of a primary source, none of which can be used to establish notability.
-
Also, it avoids confusion with the business school at University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.
-
This is not a valid reason for why an article should be kept under WP: N.
-
It has met WP: N criteria.
-
You are free to baselessly claim, as the article's creator, that article meets notability guidelines. In its current state, it does not. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
These are not baseless claims you haven't checked the secondary sources I added!.
-
Shortcut
-
WP:SIGCOV
-
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
-
The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
-
Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
-
"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
If you want to annoy and delete a school/colleges page, you better check UCLA's collleges and school, most of there references are directly linked to the institution, not a single secondary sources but you wanted to delete this page with sufficient secondary sources I added, and yet you are ignoring it. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Your time is better served finding better sources instead of calling a volunteer annoying, branding them as ignorant, or demanding they read a page which has nothing to do with the AfD. This AfD is about sourcing, so of the sources currently in the article diff:
-
-
-
The Belanger article is WP: ROUTINE coverage of the renaming of the school.
-
-
The Watson article isn't reliable. Who is this guy, and how do we know he didn't make up everything in the article?
-
-
The Lewis article was written by a high schooler and doesn't provide much information beyond that UAB's business program was ranked by the USNWR. I'd argue that this coverage is routine, and even if it isn't, there isn't much to make an article with.
-
-
There's two sources that are databases and can't be used to establish notability.
-
-
-
-
-
Anyway, nothing in this AfD stops anyone from putting information about the business school on the main UAB page, so I'm kind of surprised that there's such an aggressive push to keep the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
that's why it's called a secondary source because it only addresses the topic not the main topic and my sources are reliable and somehow you degraded a high school writer and still a reliable source. Your intentions are not really into the topic, you are trying to degrade my sources when in fact it is a criteria for nobility. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
If you still had doubts, I'll add as many secondary sources everyday until you get out of here. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
and btw those are published articles that you are trying to belittle, and it means it has met the criteria for notability even if the writer is a high school, a farmer, or a homeless man. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Comment: As nominator, I'm okay with a redirect to the main University of Alabama at Birmingham article as an AtD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
No need for redirect, I already added secondary sources. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is a rough consensus to Redirect this article but in light of the newly added sources, I'd appreciate some editors reviewing them before closing this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-
I don't see any sources as of this diff that should swing the discussion. Most of the secondary sources are (still) database entires, and those that aren't lack reliability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Miscellany for deletion (WP:MFD)[edit]
Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)[edit]
|