Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Medieval Studies (Pennsylvania State University)

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 Pennsylvania State University. It would also be perfectly acceptable for editors to change the redirect target to a specific section. If anyone strongly objects to having this page title as a redirect then we can work around that by using one of the steps in WP:MAD; if there are no other objections, though, it may be worth keeping this page as a redirect per WP:R#KEEP no. 4. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Medieval Studies (Pennsylvania State University)

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

This appears to be a non-notable group and there are few third-party sources aside from these articles from the Centre Daily Times (the university's newspaper). Aside from these Google News links, Google News also finds irrelevant links to University of Toronto's Center for Medieval Studies. Although there are several Centre Daily Times articles, all of them appear to be simply announcements of events (gallery shows, picnic, etc.) rather than significant information about the group. Additionally, the group's website never seems to provide a "history" section. Considering that several of those newspaper articles suggest this program has existed for 16 years or possibly more, I think the best option to save the article would be to move the content to Pennsylvania State University, where there currently is no mention of the group there. I should also mention that the article was deleted in April 2012 as an expired PROD but the article was restored by User:Toddst1 with the suggestion of taking the article to AfD. SwisterTwister talk 00:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~If you think the article should be merged (and Toddst1 didn't AfD it on his own), why did you nominate it for deletion?~~ There are other sources outside university publications, if you search with the common name for the university, "Penn State." Though, they are not exactly excellent coverage: [1], [2], [3]. I'm not sure where I stand just yet, though. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although different links, they continue to be small mentions and never focus with significant information about the group. To answer your question, I nominated the article here to receive consensus. I could've mention this at the talk page but this would be a better and faster way to gain consensus. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge and redirect to Penn State is in order then. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as suggested. This is not a headlining, major scholarly center, sorry. Now, UCLA, Grinnell College, UCSC, and Arizona -- those are notable centers of such research (outside of Ivy League of course). Bearian (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I should note that I'm willing to merge the content myself but I'm curious where it should go. It appears that there isn't a list at Penn State's article and there is evidently insufficient content to start a separate section. Any thoughts? SwisterTwister talk 19:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pennsylvania State University or Merge to a new subsection within #Campuses or #Organization and administration entitled 'Faculties' or similar. There is no sourced content, but the subject is possibly a viable search term. If SwisterTwister (or another editor) peforms the merge as indicated, the existing content could be retained, preferably when combined with the above sources. -- Trevj (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Article title, parentheses included, is an unlikely search term. Therefore from a purely administrative point of view, redirecting isn't a recommended outcome. Relisting to discuss alternative solutions.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 15:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge as the reasonable solution. Not really appropriate for a separate article in some manner. Not f=sufficiently notable in its own right for a separate article. I;m not sure what the correct merge target it, abut the merge should be done so as not to lose the information DGG ( talk ) 07:21, 10 September 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.