Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sciences Po Law School (2nd nomination)

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. After two re-lists, the strongest arguments are by the Keeps, and they have not been fundamentally refuted by the Deletes. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sciences Po Law School

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The "school" seems to be more a program inside Sciences Po than an actual school. It has no undergraduate degree nor a JD, only some masters specialized in law.

Sorbonne Law School is ranked 25th in the world by QS, has its whole buildings, many degrees, many more students, but has been merged with the university page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sorbonne_Law_School_(Ecole_de_Droit_de_la_Sorbonne)

It has been merged in the French Wikipedia for the same reason: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:%C3%89cole_de_droit_de_Sciences_Po/Suppression (link from the previous request, which resulted in speedy keep).

No actual merging is necessary since irrelevant information has been deleted or are already in the main article. Lots of information are from Sciences Po as a whole: budget, mascot, etc. Most of the article (now removed of all the promotional, unrelated and inaccurate content by @scope_creep and me) and independent sources dealt with the controversy of the bar exam entrance in Sciences Po, which predates the creation of the school in 2009 and is related to the institution as a whole and its students from all "schools". That can be added to the main article, but this article should be deleted anyway.

Delfield (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC) (modified following discussion about confusion with merging --Delfield (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC) )[reply]

Delete or merge. Such programs or whatever almost never have separate notability, and I don't see much going for this one, neither. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Delfield: You have posted this as an Afd when you were looking a merge. Generally you stick on Template:Merge to propose a merge on your article and the subsequent Template:Merge to to the article you want to merge into and a discussion takes place, consensus is sought to merge or no merge. You now have a real chance of getting it deleted as you have posted onto Afd queue, which is entirely the wrong place. I would suggest we close this, follow the normal process. I don't mind doing it. @Piotrus: Would you agree to that. scope_creep^Talk 12:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is more deletion actually. I agree with @Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus on the notability, that should cause deletion (or merge, but it looks more like a deletion whether can add something in the main article afterwards, but I think this article should be deleted we decide to do it or not). I removed the mention to merge, sorry! (editing conflict) --Delfield (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is deletion, the whole article will be deleted, so no merge will occur and no content will remain. Merge discussion take on the talk page of articles your planning to merge, not on the Afd queue, where your article stands a chance of being deleted. scope_creep^Talk 12:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted from the article the unrelated part, and now only remains relevant information, but inside an article that should be deleted. I also edited my request accordingly. Hope this is good for you and sorry for the confusion. --Delfield (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll see what Prokonsul Piotrus says first. scope_creep^Talk 13:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I just say I changed my request to a deletion request. It is not a merging request, at least not any more. --Delfield (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or Merge as appropriate) to Sciences Po, as is pretty standard for this kind of article. Not seeing enough stand-alone coverage to justify spinning it off. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To reiterate what I said last time: We are not bound by decisions made in other Wikipedias that may have different standards of notability. Appears to be a very notable law school in France. It's true that we don't keep articles on schools, faculties and departments of larger institutions unless they're very notable in their own right, but it would appear that this one is. "It has no undergraduate degree nor a JD, only some masters specialized in law." That's a bit disingenuous. According to the article it has 42 doctoral students and 342 masters' students, plus many others. I do hope the nominator is not assuming all legal education is like American legal education. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is Sciences Po which is notable, not that "school" created in 2009.

It is not a school according to any legal education, US, French, or else. There is no bachelor (undergraduate, European system) nor any JD degree (American system) offered.

Even Sorbonne Law School was not considered notable enough to have its own page (only the university is notable): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sorbonne_Law_School_(Ecole_de_Droit_de_la_Sorbonne) --Delfield (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masters and doctorates are offered. Other AfDs are irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: Nothing shows a separate notability. --194.199.3.13 (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps the contributors of the discussion on Sorbonne Law School could tell us if their opinion is the same here? Xuo Tran MapcheckerParis Jack N. Stock Meatsgains AngusWOOF --Delfield (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion is that articles should not be brought to AfD if merge is a likely outcome Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jack N. Stock: Isn't deletion the most adequate solution here, since there is nothing to merge really? Besides, is merging a likely outcome here? --Delfield (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rationale at the first AFD was that the topic had enough references to pass WP:GNG. We do in fact keep articles on notable departments within colleges that can pass WP:SIGCOV (particularly when WP:CONTENTFORK applies.) The nominator's rationale is not based on policy but on extrapolating a truth off of one example which is a logical fallacy.4meter4 (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is an article on a notable subject with reliable sources. Just the sort of article we keep in the encyclopedia. WP:NOTPAPER Wm335td (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2019 (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.