Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic programs in acoustics

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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Academic programs in acoustics[edit]

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

A fair amount of work has went into this page, and I'm not keen to see it lost, but on the other hand, this does seem like a textbook case of WP:NOTDIR. Unless a compelling argument can be made for why we should keep this (AFAIK, no other disciplines have such lists), I think this one has to go the way of the dodo. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proposer. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's implied by the fact you nominated it for deletion here; don't restate it in formatting that suggests a !vote by a separate commenter. postdlf (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is necessarily a WP:NOTDIR issue unless it included non-notable educational institutions (in which case that problem would still just be solved by removing those). If there aren't such lists for other disciplines at preset, why shouldn't there be? Aren't the programs offered by institutions of higher learning significant facts about them, such that indexing them together by that fact is encyclopedic? But I think we need to discuss whether "program" is a meaningful enough threshold for inclusion so it doesn't just include every college/university that offered a single course or even merely covered the subject in the context of a broader course. postdlf (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTDIR as the programs themselves are not notable. ^King Jakob _C2 19:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete besides failing WP:NOTDIR, there is no signifigant independent coverage of this topic, and certainly no independent coverage of a list such as this. In addition, all references appear to be primary sources, and hence this article at least borders on being a platorm for promotion. Finally, I agree that the programs are not notable, although the corresponding instituions might be notable. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2013 (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.