Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Belgrade Faculty of Political Sciences

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The result was Nomination Withdrawn.(non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 18:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Belgrade Faculty of Political Sciences[edit]

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

Non-notable academic unit. No claim of notability and no independent refs. Neither translation has obvious independent refs (I can't read the languages so don't know whether there's a claim of notability). Nothing obvious in google. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Withdraw nomination as per ref found by No such user, this and this, and also this RSS feed. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of independent notability of this faculty so does not meet Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges. AllyD (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the major faculty of the country's biggest university. I don't think that anyone above followed WP:BEFORE. If you take a glance at its History section, there is an explanation that it was the major political faculty in former Yugoslavia. I'm not sure what kind of references you expect for an university article, because they're not frequently written about (thus, most information about them is on their own web site), but just a brief search in Cyrillic on Google Books gives 2880 hits of the faculty, and even more in Latin (which also includes false positives about other FPN's in ex-Yu). No such user (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not sure what kind of references you expect for an university article, because they're not frequently written about [...]" is exactly why most faculty have trouble meeting the WP:GNG. Look for newspaper coverage of anniversaries, restructurings and similar, which is where most faculty that make the grade get their sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, their 40th aniversary was held in the hall of the National Assembly, and was sponsored by the President: Radio Television of Serbia Google Translate. No such user (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain We often keep articles for the first order divisions of a major university, e.g. Harvard University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, on the grounds that they are at least partially autonomous, that the amount of material needs subdivision, and that for something as important as this, references are available. . On the other hand, we almost never keep articles for the subject departments within such schools, unless they are one or the 3 or 4 internationally famous ones where unmistakably good references are available--that's a case where the effective criterion is not notable, but famous. However, this university, like some other European universities, is divided in the first order into subject faculties--31 of them. These would not be autonomous to the degree of the Harvard GSAS, but more so than the department of political science in the Harvard GSAS. If we go entirely by the GNG, we will get essentially random results depending on who wants to work on it--for any university about which a full history is written, I can probably find a chapter or a large part of one on each individual department, for any department with enough really famous graduates, I can probably find substantial material about the department in their biographies. and I'm aware of academic history articles discussing quite a few individual academic departments. It will depend on whether someone is motivated to do the work. This is a case where I think we need to favor consistency over the GNG, and fortunately, we can make our own rules. I could equally well argue in either direction. In the past I've argued for a policy of restraint, to discourage the production of thousands of basically trivial articles that just manage to find enough sources. That's still a good argument. On the other hand, a comprehensive encyclopedia could do better, and with the spread of education projects in universities, these sorts of topics would be very good possibilities for articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 8 June 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.