Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deakin Law School

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 } - Keep with a merge tag left and the actual merging left to interested editors - Peripitus (Talk) 11:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deakin Law School[edit]

Fails WP:CORP lacks reliable and third party sources to establish notability Michellecrisp (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Law schools, and most graduate schools, are generally accepted to be notable. I would be quite shocked if there are no reliable sources out there. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a graduate school. From the article: "The school teaches Bachelor of Laws to undergraduate students ..." -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But what's with the second half of the sentence that you left out?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, it has some postgraduate students but that does not make it a post-graduate school. Its role is to teach undergraduates. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is again a misconception that came out in the Griffith Law School deletion debate. In Australia, law schools are predominantly undergraduate with most or all students doing a combined degree as Mattinbgn says below. Secondly, Australian law schools are no more autonomous than say an engineering school. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google: "Results 1 - 10 of about 2,060 for 'deakin law school.'" Yahoo: "1 - 10 of 1,900 for ' deakin law school.'" I'd be pretty surprised if at least a couple of these didn't qualify as "reliable...third party sources to establish notability." Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no opinion on this, but I'd just like to point out that, for the string "deakin law school" -wikipedia, Google returns 137 unique results and the same string on Yahoo returns (or appears to return; what a weird search engine) 274 unique results. AnturiaethwrTalk 21:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reason. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, I know that. The gist of WP:GHITS is quality-over-quantity, and my point was that there are enough hits (e.g., this one) of potentially good quality that it would be premature to delete without first exploring these hits in some depth. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Deakin University. This is not a law school in the North American sense. The school is a mere department of Deakin University with no more independence than the Engineering, Biology and Commerce departments. The school is not a graduate school per se, but teaches law to undergraduates. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Mattinbgn. In addition: As per Anturiaethwr, there are 137 unique articles if you look at the last page of the Google search and remove Wikipedia from the search. In addition, I'd be pretty surprised if at least a couple of these didn't qualify as "reliable is not a valid keep criterion. Corvus cornix_talk 22:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- with Deakin University per Mattinbgn. - Longhair\^talk 22:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mattinbgn. Law schools in Australia are basically university departments, and aren't independent institutions (for example, they don't issue their own degrees). Nick Dowling (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for exactly the same reasons I gave for keeping Griffith University Law School. The UWS School of Law is a similar case, but has no deletion tag. This lack of consistency suggests that Michellecrisp is trying to make some kind of WP:POINT, which does not seem particularly helpful. Law schools founded in the 1990s have not had time to develop the prowess of nineteenth century or 1960s schools, but they could still be notable. Mathsci (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please discuss the subject matter at hand, not the nominator. Corvus cornix_talk 23:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Corvus, I have previously had a conflict with Mathsci, seems like is hanging onto every deletion I nominate and automatically opposes (could be WP:POINT in itself) as for UWS School of Law is another candidate which I have just put up for deletion. Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not valid in a deletion debate. The current article lacks reliable sources to establish notability that is the key question. If they are notable there will be ample evidence. So if you are arguing for keep please provide the evidence rather than original research. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several WP articles on Australian University law schools. These schools fall into three classes: those created in the nineteenth century, those created in the 1960's and those created in the 1990's. Recently created law schools cannot expect to number ambassadors or high school judges amongst their alumni, but are nevertheless notable because, like business schools, they have a slightly different status within their university. Some university law schools in the UK do not necessarily get a separate article. While this is true for the Law Faculty of the University of Cambridge, (which lists no alumni, only a current list of administrative staff and as far as I can see makes no attempt to establish notability), there is no article for the law school in the University of Oxford (there is an article on the undergraduate Oxford Law Society). Three university law schools in Australia established in the 1990's currently have WP articles: Griffith University Law School, Deakin Law School and UWS School of Law. The recent establishment of these law schools, and the consequent paucity of alumni, should not exclude these law schools from having articles. Mathsci (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of alumni is not the sole criterion for notability nor is the relative age of the school. If these arguments are presented then it follows that other schools such as engineering or science from Griffith University , Deakin University , University of Western Sydney should have their own articles. Basically I'm looking for evidence from verifiable sources not original research that these schools have a significant standing in academia. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why WP:OR applies to this kind of discussion; it is a term that refers to main space edits. I am not sure how you would assess the noteworthiness of law institutes like the Cambridge Institute of Criminology. Just for reference, because this is a debate and because the CIC is a comparable institution founded in 1959, could you explain why that law institute deserves a WP article, but this one does not, based purely on what you can read in the article and its one non-independent source? Mathsci (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2008 (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.