Texas A&M University College of Liberal Arts: There is no notability as proven by reliable secondary sourcing, and no reason why there should be any; please note that all the "sourcing" is actually a collection of primary links to the Texas A&M website, and the article itself, with its list of majors and programs, just a kind of directory.  Drmies ( talk ) 23:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Texas .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Pinging Rosguill , who earlier tagged this for notability; User:Miszatomic , who merged this a while ago; and Randykitty , who's dealt with this user before.  Also pinging User:ElKevbo , who PRODded this before.  Drmies ( talk ) 23:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Texas A&M unless independent sourcing demonstrating that the college meets GNG independently of the rest of Texas A&M can be provided.  signed, Rosguill talk 00:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I nominally have no issue with redirecting and merging WP:DUE content to another, more relevant Texas A&M-related page as suggested by Aquabluetesla below, but I would note that the current state of sourcing at Texas A&M University College of Science is no better than this article, and thus may just be kicking the can down the road (despite citing one independent source, said source does not include significant coverage of the College of Science in particular but rather is a college ranking page listing Texas A&M as a whole).  signed, Rosguill talk 16:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] User:Rosguill , good point: that article is no better, and that article should simply redirect to the main Texas A&M article.  Drmies ( talk ) 15:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This nomination is outdated as to the present state of the article.  This discussion should be Speedily Kept as per WP:SK guidelines under reason 1(b), (the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion (i.e. arguments that would support deletion, userfying or redirection, perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging)) and 3.  (The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided.)  The nominator of the article has failed to revise their unintelligible or, at the very least, convoluted reason for the initial nomination.  Alternatively, Keep or Merge with Texas A&M University College of Science because the new college is the College of Arts and Sciences, and they were originally founded in 1924 as the School of Arts and Sciences and split in 1965.  Please explain what "Very few individual university departments are notable, and this one is not exception--it's like almost all the other ones, and at best deserves a redirect" means.  As it’s written, this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of "departments" as that words definition with context to universities is the majors or subjects such as economics, philosophy, history, etc.  It’s unclear as to what you mean by "…this one is not exception".  What is "it" and what are the "other ones" that you are referring to by "it's almost like all the other ones"?  The other colleges of Texas A&M?  The departments in the other colleges of the university?  Please specify.  What do you mean by "…no reason there should be any [secondary sources]"?  Why?  This page should absolutely not be deleted.  The college is very notable, Phil Gramm , the U.S. Senator, taught economics at the college and until its demise, the college was one of the largest at A&M, which is in the top three of the largest universities of the United States.  The college is approaching its 100th anniversary of its founding and was much larger than many of the colleges of A&M that also have pages and a less amount of sources currently.  It never should have been deleted in the first place.  How is it different from the other colleges/schools listed in the infobox?  I will be adding more sources soon, and have found several secondary sources relating to the subject.  I will be making a history section.  I made a notable faculty section and might add a notable alumni section soon.  I would like those arguing for it to explain the argument against merging with the College of Science and why it should be a redirect to Texas A&M University.  Pinging some editors of A&M articles for their input, Buffs , Larry Hockett , Nicolás Macri , Largoplazo , John B123 , Jessicapierce , Steve Quinn , Anas1712 , Purplebackpack89 , and Oldag07 .  Aquabluetesla ( talk ) 02:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Aquabluetesla : Are there independent sources that indicate that this subject is notable ?  ElKevbo ( talk ) 02:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes.  They will be added.  Aquabluetesla ( talk ) 04:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's what I'm waiting for because I'm not readily finding any and without them I'm going to support restoration of the redirect.  Largoplazo ( talk ) 13:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you want this article to not be deleted as a result of this discussion, I strongly recommend that you add those references now .  (And the same goes for the articles about the other colleges of this university - they'll probably be nominated for deletion on the same grounds, too, if they also lack independent sources that demonstrate notability).  ElKevbo ( talk ) 14:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sentence just above here aptly demonstrates the problem with this user: really, Aquabluetesla , you don't know which subject we're discussing here?  In any case, given the absence of independent sources treating the subject in-depth: delete or redirect to Texas A&M University .  I also recommend that somebody has a closer look at President of Texas A&M University .  -- Randykitty ( talk ) 07:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you my dear friend, I’m honoured to receive the grandiose compliment you’ve bestowed upon my additions by recommending others view the wonderful article on this present website regarding the President of Texas A&M University. I cannot quantify the joy that I feel knowing that you think the article is without flaw and are unable to name any improvements or any criticisms that must not be coming to mind. That must reflect amazingly on the superb quality of the informative content I've contributed to the page. Although, (for the record), I will not confirm or deny that I may or may not have made some significant contributions to it. I am eternally grateful for your gratitude, sincerity, and kind words. Thank you, very much so. /s Aquabluetesla ( talk ) 09:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Indicating that this is sarcasm doesn't make it any more acceptable. Drmies ( talk ) 13:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please reword your opening argument. It is unacceptable and does not make the slightest amount of sense. Aquabluetesla ( talk ) 17:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's perfectly acceptable and quite clear. The core is "There is no notability as proven by reliable secondary sourcing", supplemented by the point about all the sources that you supplied being from Texas A&M itself, none of them independent of the article's subject. If the subject fails the general notability guidelines , then it probably doesn't qualify for an article. Largoplazo ( talk ) 17:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If Phil Gramm has dogs and boards them at a kennel when he travels, does that make the kennel notable? If he plays chess and belongs to a chess club, does that make the chess club notable? No. Largoplazo ( talk ) 17:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m fascinated by this comment. Many reasons other than the fact that Phil Gramm taught in the college make it notable. Aquabluetesla ( talk ) 17:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're the one who cited it as a reason. I pointed out that it isn't one. Do you think there's a rule that unless someone dispenses with all your arguments, they shouldn't dispense with any? Anyway, unless it has received suitable independent coverage in reliable sources because of its size, its size is irrelevant here. University departments don't become notable just because they've lasted--I mean, every university English department or History department that's older than 100 isn't thereby notable.  You can't just make up your own notability criteria.  Largoplazo ( talk ) 18:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This subject is about the school or College of Liberal Arts of Texas A&M University, not its individual departments.  Aquabluetesla ( talk ) 19:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] School.  Department.  Division.  College.  Campus.  The point is the same.  And, for your own benefit, it's worth my mentioning that considering you've been informed what the primary consideration here is going to be—to spell it out, it's going to be significant coverage in independent, reliable sources—you seem to be devoting more effort to snapping back and nitpicking about details when people point out to you what isn't going to lead to a Keep outcome than to gathering sources that would lead to a Keep outcome.  Largoplazo ( talk ) 22:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now?  Aquabluetesla ( talk ) 23:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Now what?  The citation to the website of the school's fundraising wing?  Not exactly an independent source.  And it isn't really about the school anyway, it's about a generous alumnus donation.  It shows not at all that the school has attained significant notice outside of its own circle, which is more or less the goal at hand.  Largoplazo ( talk ) 23:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, you are disregarding the source on the ProQuest website.  Aquabluetesla ( talk ) 23:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, that.  You mean, the dissertation presented by a Texas A&M University student to the Office of Graduate Studies at Texas A&M University.  Does that seem independent to you?  Largoplazo ( talk ) 00:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just added category "Liberal arts colleges at universities in the United States" when It was still a redirect.  I can't say anything more.  Anas1712 ( talk ) 19:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Texas A&M .  No indication the article meets WP:GNG .  Phil Gramm teaching there does not make the college notable, see WP:NOTINHERETED .  -- John B123 ( talk ) 09:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please explain your argument against merging with the College of Science and why it should be a redirect to Texas A&M University. Aquabluetesla ( talk ) 23:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Texas A&M University College of Science has the same issues as this article (which has already been noted in this discussion). It is likely to be sent to AfD itself soon. In my opinion, a WP:MULTIAFD is needed for most of the articles in Category:Texas A&M University colleges and schools . -- John B123 ( talk ) 05:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you.  Aquabluetesla ( talk ) 02:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Texas A&M University College of Science - The two schools are merging so this makes sense.  As for the broader discussion, about the various sub schools within a university are noteable, that is something for WP:UNI to discuss not here.   I see no evidence that "Very few individual university departments are notable".   Doing a random search of universities, I see plenty of sub school pages.  See Trinity College of Arts and Sciences or University of Texas at Austin College of Liberal Arts or University of Arkansas College of Education & Health Professions .  I am not sure why this page has been singled out.  Oldag07 ( talk ) 18:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oldag07 , this page wasn't "singled out".  Those with experience in AfD have heard that a thousand times already.  Drmies ( talk ) 15:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your reason for nomination is unintelligible.  Aquabluetesla ( talk ) 19:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ... -- Randykitty ( talk ) 19:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This information was cited as a counter to "Very few individual university departments are notable" demonstrating that it's pretty conclusively false...which the point that OldAg07 was making.  You cited a reason he wasn't debating.  Buffs ( talk ) 03:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] while good advice, that article is not official Wikipedia policy.  see the top of that page.    the presence of articles similar to it help establish its notability as least as it relates to Wikipedia.   we aren't talking about one or two pages.  we are talking hundreds.  Oldag07 ( talk ) 20:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, there are likely dozens or hundreds of articles about non-notable university colleges and departments that should also be deleted.  This is a very neglected part of Wikipedia that has usually been edited only by alumni and employees of those organizations - this is a long overdue correction.  ElKevbo ( talk ) 20:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Correct, it isn't an official policy.  It's an elaboration on common sense.  A consistent history of a particular kind of criminal charge under particular cirumstances being thrown out of court indicates to prosecutors that it's foolish to bring more of such cases to court.  But the occurrence of many bank robberies where the robbers haven't been prosecuted because they haven't been caught yet doesn't mitigate the seriousness of charges when they are raised against a particular bank robber who's been caught.  That latter point is the entirely valid one that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS makes.  One points to essays like that in discussions like these because the reasoning is already fully spelled out in the essays, sparing everyone the repetition of it at length in every discussion where it's relevant.  Policy isn't the only thing with value.  Largoplazo ( talk ) 22:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I respectfully disagree that the point here wasn't "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" so this should (which was the primary point of the essay).  He already said "merge it".  Buffs ( talk ) 03:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Make this a draft I respect the efforts of Aquabluetesla to improve this article, but at this point, it doesn't meet the threshold for a separate article.  To a certain extent, it includes information that could be incorporated into the Texas A&M article (mostly already is).  Information that is too detailed could be added as a note and I see nothing procedurally to discourage that.  There's no reason to lose the information here.  I would caution people about throwing around "not an independent source".  Very little of the cited information is remotely controversial or something that a University would lie about.  While we need to avoid boosterism, the date the College began or their enrollment is hardly controversial unless it is a wild claim.  Such claims are submitted to the US Government under penalty of perjury...they have little reason to lie and are checked by the US Dept of Education.  Buffs ( talk ) 03:57, 22 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect