Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murdoch University Dubai

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 no consensus. Per this discussion, the article won't be deleted; it's basically a split between article retention and merging. A merge discussion can continue on a talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murdoch University Dubai[edit]

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

Article does not sufficently explain why this satelite campus of a Austrailian university is independently notable. Content is also covered in the parent article in a section in addition 5 of the currently 8 "references" are from the university (or a sub devision of itself) and the final ones only talk about the university at large. The final references either don't mention the university system at all or are given to the overall university system (and not the Dubai sattelite campus. This article should not have been moved to mainspace by Neha Thomas (who appears to have a SPA focus on Murdoch University Dubai). I'm calling the question right now to determine what should be done with this page as I would not have promoted it out of the Articles for Creation bullpen in it's current Advert/overlapping content. I have no objections to this being sent back to Draft space, but I would ask that creation protection be added to the mainspace address to encourage improvement in the article. I also have no objections to merging/redirecting this article into the Murdoch University (but also ask for the redirect protection (PP-Full) to force a spinout development/discussion to occur. Hasteur (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article as it currently stands is promotional crap written by someone with a COI, but the topic is notable enough. I don't currently have access to any archive with either WA newspapers or The Australian (which has by far the best higher education coverage), but I'm pretty confident that if I did I could write one. I did find this and this, but I think not being able to find more says more about my news database access than it does about the notability of the topic. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews with employees of the specific satellite campus are not independently reliable and probably part of the PR push. What makes this satellite campus so important, what needs to be covered in this article that couldn't be covered in Murdoch University? I see you make the argument "I could improve this", then it is reasonable that you support either of the ATD that I propose (Put it back in Draft space for review by AFC or MergeRedirect to the parent article). Hasteur (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is independently reliable when said interview occurs in a reliable source. Sorry, no - this is a notable topic, and merge-and-salt or userfy-and-salt are not things we do to notable topics. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to see if someone can improve the article. If more sources can be located to demonstrate notability, I would vote to keep. If not, redirect and merge with Murdoch University page. Cpuser20 (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"See if someone can improve" means putting it back in AFC with the creation protection right Cpuser20? Hasteur (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that was something people do, what I was saying is see if someone can fix it during the AFD process and we'll decide then. Cpuser20 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something commonly done, and it's something I would adamantly oppose. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - A fair amount of the article is about Murdoch University. Those bits that aren't could easily be merged into that article(what isn't already covered there). AlanS (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Constant issue in Australian university articles are where components (departments/campuses/centres) are held to be notable. Murdoch has had over timeother external presences overseas - they should be in the main article. The test for notability for components/campuses should have a much higher level than assumptions of a campus outside country of origin being enough. satusuro 01:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep international Branch campuses of this sort are sufficiently distinct and significant to be treated as independent institutions.

Comment: It seems that whatever side previous contributors to this discussion have took, they do agree that the article needs more independently verifiable sources and is rather slanted. Whatever course of action is adopted, we can use other non-controversial Wikipedia articles regarding satellite campuses as a reference point such as New York University Abu Dhabi.

I have included a few links that could be added as sources for this article. The first one specifically talks about the founding of the Dubai campus and could substitute the link currently used in the "Founding and history" section. Additionally, the article is not affiliated with Murdoch university and it talks specifically about the Abu Dhabi campus.

http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/education/murdoch-university-opens-dubai-campus http://dubaiinformer.com/120918/murdoch-university-screens-its-first-free-film-festival/ http://www.uae.embassy.gov.au/files/abud/12-11-02%20murdoch%20university%20dubai%20graduation%20speech.pdf

Also, if my comment fails to generate any more discussion, I suggest that anadministrator removes the proposal for deletion and simply replaces it with tags regarding NPOV and Verifiability since this discussion seems to have otherwise stagnated.

Yster76 22:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how any of the arguments too keep override any arguments that have been put forth for merge/redirect. This debate has been going on for a while now and there has been no material added that justifies keeping of an separate article, nor are has there been shown to be any material from which a separate article could be rightly constructed. The fact remains that all of the content for this article that is under consideration which is reliable is already covered by the main article. AlanS^talk 12:50, 23 September 2014 (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.