Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newcastle University spin-out companies

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 Newcastle University. A selective merge is the most applicable option per the discussion below. —Darkwind (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle University spin-out companies[edit]

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

just a list of non notable companies (Except one). don't see how such a list is notable. or even worth merging into the main university article. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:L. If more were notable, we could have a list. Even if there were more sources discussing the history of Newcastle uni's involvement with industry there might be scope for an article, but the individual entries aren't notable, and I don't think the topic is notable either. Notable spin-offs could be mentioned on main Newcastle University page but this article doesn't warrant a full merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Newcastle University. I think the topic might be notable but the present article is very far from establishing this. So, because it requires improvement rather than deletion, I suggest a redirect without deleting the history. It is a plausible search term. The university's website has a spin-out web page (though the article's link to it is broken) and, since the main article on the university has no reference to spin-out companies, I'll create a very short section with an external link. I have no connection with (or, frankly, interest in) the topic but deletion is an unsuitable approach. I agree that merge of the present material does not seem appropriate. Thincat (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think redirect is of little value as the article name is an unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'd have thought that people with an interest in Newcastle University spin-out companies might search for this. Why the wish to delete it? is there something wrong? Some of the information is verified, and some very likely verifiable. The university web site obviously doesn't advertise the companies that have gone out of business so some some sort of record is useful. If a redirect is objectionable we could, I suppose, do a merge with history merge to Newcastle University and then editorially remove the content thought excessive. Buy why do all this? Is the information embarrassing for some reason that makes it desirable to suppress it? Thincat (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge notable content to Newcastle University#Spin-out companies. TubularWorld (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a journalist who reports on university tech transfer (who also happens to live in Newcastle), pages such as this one are incredibly useful. However, I'd make the point that if Newcastle wants to talk about its spin-out success, then it should talk about its tech transfer process as a whole for this article as opposed to just listing the outcomes. Information like 'what's newcastle's TTO?' 'what's its history?' 'who runs it?' 'what's its investment strategy' and more general information could and should be applied to make this article more useful and broad reaching. That way, it'd provide useful information to academics interested in TT, companies looking to license, prospective students looking into how the university supports spin-outs, and, of course, nosey journalists. GreggBayesBrown (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC) — GreggBayesBrown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Oh, also, more detail about the companies and links to their websites (or a note of when they shut down) would also go down well. GreggBayesBrown (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2013 (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) 01:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources of this subtopic. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2013 (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.