Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for South Asian Studies (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 merge to Asian Institute. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for South Asian Studies[edit]

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

Not separately notable. A Centre within an Institute within a School within a major University. The furtherest justified level for such articles usually is the first order division, the school, and conceivably the second if it is very notable & can be shown as such by 3rd party sources, but almost never the third--the practical criterion that far down the chain is world-fanous. These are not just my own preferences, but a summary of what has been done in almost all Most previous AfD discussions. A purely promotional article, characterized, as so many similar articles are, by a list of lectures given at the Centre, and a substantial biography of the director. It should have a mention in the article on the Asian Institute--if even that article is justifiable. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:40, 25 January 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per previous AfD conclusion. The article is effectively the same as it was when considered in the previous AfD. The post-AfD merge notice was removed without comment by an IP, which is effectively what brings this back again. AllyD (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Asian Institute. Not separately notable and best practice is to merge to the lowest level notable body. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:46, 1 February 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.