Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for Advancing Journalism

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 University of Melbourne Faculty of Arts. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Advancing Journalism[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. sources are primary or not in depth eg confirmed that a speaker spoke there. gnews just points to quotes from Denis Muller who works there, which I've also nominated as questionable notability. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No argument for deletion, since failure of WP:ORG is not by itself an argument for deletion. This is either a degree awarding institution, or part of one. No WP:BEFORE D1, no WP:BEFORE analysis of the WP:ATD. Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

argument for deletion is clearly stated, no extensive third party sources to meet WP:ORG. the degrees are awarded by University of Melbourne I'm pretty sure the testamur does not even mention this Centre. LibStar (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were not clearly stated, you should be able to amplify your previous comments and identify a WP:DEL-REASON. Unscintillating (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder your actual motivation for these comments... more than this AfD... LibStar (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misdirection is not an argument for deletion that includes a WP:DEL-REASON. If you can't advance your argument against the reasons I have provided, then I think you should abandon it. Do you have a response based in reason and policy? Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you need to WP:CHILL. I think you are getting very worked up over this AfD LibStar (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in a non-sequitur. Please respond on point. Unscintillating (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please WP:LETGO. I will not respond further. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another off-topic response. As to the mysterious essays, as per WP:ATA#Just pointing at a policy or guideline,

While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy.

As noted above, deletion discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus. Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article.

Unscintillating (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article itself contains zero refs supporting Notability. (Nine refs were written by University employees, and the remaining ref doesn't even mention the Centre.) I spent a lot of time digging deep for independent sources on the Centre. Best available independent sources:[1][2][3]. In theory this should probably be a merge. However I fear a merge won't make sense unless someone is prepared to deal with the fact that all of the buildings and fields of study at this university have been excessively split off as individual pages. I looked at Category:University_of_Melbourne and gave up. Even the residence buildings have individual pages. Excluding biographies, it's nearly a hundred pages. Readers would be better served if things were merged into a smaller and more navigable number of pages. I offer my endorsement and best wishes to anyone willing to undertake such an overhaul. Alsee (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments . Are you arguing for a merge? LibStar (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 23:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. No, I'm not volunteering to do it, but I believe that it is the correct action in this case. Ross-c (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit above states, "In theory this should probably be a merge. However I fear a merge won't make sense unless someone...undertake[s]...an overhaul". So if your !vote is "as above" and you are "not volunteering", your !vote "won't make sense". Unscintillating (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 'merge' requires an overhaul. And, that's what I'm voting for. So, I believe that my vote makes sense. Ross-c (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with the analysis presented by Alsee. Merging is necessary, and all the unsourced school, residential, and building articles in Category:University of Melbourne are not appropriate. It is a big job. I am guessing the University of Melbourne staff and/or students who did all this. But who knows... --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Alsee, far too many split of articles from this university.Aloneinthewild (talk) 14:25, 26 August 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.