Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Maryland Department of Computer Science

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Maryland Department of Computer Science[edit]

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

For academic departments, usually we only make articles for the top 3 or 4 in the world--15th in the country is not notable-. Of the 14 references,13 are from themselves. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think there needs to be such numerical thresholds as "top 3 or 4". I count 3 refs not from themselves; yes, they are only mentions in passing. Then again, departments are rarely the kind of things that are prominently featured for themselves; they are background information for the prominent people and industries which they get off the ground. In that respect, I think this department has been quite successful, and that the article provides somewhat useful context connecting notable people, companies, and events. Conversely, I see absolutely no harm in keeping it. I admit having trouble pointing to a specific piece of policy that would mandate that it be kept, though. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- largely unsourced original research & promotionalism. This content belongs on the University's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am going to have to say that if, as per Gamell Wednesday, departments are rarely the kind of things that are prominently featured, but are just background information, then departments rarely are notable (and they don't WP:INHERIT notability from their prominent alumni and faculty). If the only 3 non-self refs for this one only mention the department in passing, then that points to it not being notable. Agricolae (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2017 (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.