Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher education/Deletion

University of Santo Tomas seals and emblems

University of Santo Tomas seals and emblems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a glorified non-free image gallery. There are major image use issues here, and if all of the non-free images were removed, what would be left? There are no cited independent sources. The notability of the university's many seals is not established. Wikipedia is not a guide to UST seals, nor a place to have non-free image galleries. Andrew c ^[talk] 16:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete – this is what Commons is for. MuZemike 21:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. If ever free images were used in the article, would it make it notable enough? Starczamora (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  The images are not what makes it notable or not. We turn to independent sourcing to establish notability, per WP:N. My point was that even if we took away all the non-free images to solve that problem, what would be left? We have no sources, no commentary, and no evidence that this is a notable, encyclopedic topic. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

List of Colleges with online degree programs

List of Colleges with online degree programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not encyclopedic material, merely a listing of colleges. Dmol (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Rules99 (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yes it's definitely a WP:LIST, I think the question is whether its criterion for inclusion is noteworthy. Rules99 (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Rebuild it as a Category Spinach Monster (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I've never seen such a long list full of notable items with so few wikilinks. I'm amazed. These AfD'd lists are usually populated by redlinks. Wow. Anyway, ummmmm.... delete and "merge" content into a category. SMSpivey (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as simply a list of colleges. I thought (almost) all colleges had online degree programs? Tavix (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - not really relevant, and as a Brit I'm insulted by the two British universities listed as being "foreign" when Wikipedia is a global website. The UK universities are no more "foreign" than the American ones. But in any case, I still think it's an irrelevant list. Tris2000 (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Good example of listcruft, sorting by irrelevant data. Thanks to Tavix for a good point; I might have supported a change-to-category otherwise. By the way, the "foreign" has an understandable reason: the data are taken directly from a US publication (perhaps U.S. News & World Report?); not to say that this is good :-) Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 00:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

Eastern Michigan University Student Center

Eastern Michigan University Student Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Every single reference is directly from EMU's own website, EMU's own school newspaper, or a blog (which itself fails WP:RS). Non-notable "campus hub" at a school. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep I agree that the article lacks secondary sources and I will begin to add more. I do want to point out Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines, universities are notable and that student unions at those universities are huge part of the university and surrounding community. Under "Campus" it talks about "Facilities or Buildings" being talked about having "historic or cultural importance beyond the university itself". While the guidelines doesn't address specific sub articles relating to buildings.

• The building heavily relates to a building on an NRHP. The information on the building on the Eastern Michigan University page grew to the point that I thought warranted a Wikipedia:Splitting.
• The building is heavily used by the city of ypsilanti and the community in the region for conferences I can start adding citations for those.
• Beyond this it had the first Campus Gaming Centers in the country and if not one of the only with a kiva.
• I'm not trying to pull WP:OTHERSTUFF but there are 41 articles on WP on College Unions and I feel like there is a general notability issue of college unions/university buildings overall.
• As well, two of the current citations on the page come from the school's library archives and the other comes from the city of ypsilanti newspaper. -Pwojdacz (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of university-related deletion discussions. Pwojdacz (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Insufficient third party sources to establish notability, per WP:GNG.-GrapedApe (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Pwojdacz. There is way too much sourced content which as a whole do demonstrate passing WP:GNG. It was correct to split from the Eastern Michigan University article. --Oakshade (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. There is plenty more that can be added to this; in less than an hour I've added 6 additional secondary sources, including articles from the Ann Arbor News (the area's now-defunct daily newspaper) and The Ypsilanti Courier (the weekly newspaper). Also, the Eastern Echo is an independent newspaper. cmadler (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Being an "independent" student newspaper still equals being a student newspaper of the school. It is not a third party source, period. Anyone reading this AfD can go right to its Wikipedia article and see a conflict of interest in using it as a source. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This is not a notability issue, it's an organizational issue, and splitting this content from the main Eastern Michigan University article is a reasonable editorial decision. TJRC (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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.