UAB School of Engineering: PROD removed without sufficient sourcing improvements -- the sourcing on the article is either primary or database entries. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 16:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I already added secondary sources. It has met WP: N criteria. Juicy fruit146 ( talk ) 17:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First, this Keep vote is from the article's creator. Second, the only secondary source that I see that could establish notability is the Jones article. Unfortunately, it appears to be a rephrasing of a UAB announcement , which is a primary source. It also isn't clear to me whether Jones is reliable in the first place. HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 18:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] why are you always doubting my sources, it is already on clear that my sources are reliable. Are you trying to delete all my pages? It seems you're targeting my pages. This page is already a criteria for nobility. No need to delete. Juicy fruit146 ( talk ) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I want to make it clear that whether a source is secondary and whether it can be used to establish notability are two different questions. WP: GNG describes several criteria for whether a source can be used to establish notability. You are right that there are secondary sources in the article. However, those sources can't be used to establish notability. The Shipley article isn't about the school -- it is about an invention by people who happen to be affiliated with UAB Engineering.  Since the coverage isn't direct, it can't establish notability.  The issue with the Jones article remains unaddressed.  The remainder are lists or directories that cannot be used to establish notability.  I'm not targeting "your pages" (whatever that means, considering that no user really "owns" any page outside of their userspace).  In any case, AfD is not the appropriate venue to address such a claim.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 20:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll add more secondary sources until you gave up!  The article is about the school that created the invention.  Juicy fruit146 ( talk ) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article is about the school that created the invention.  The article is titled "UAB engineering students create walker to aid Children’s of Alabama patients".  It's about an invention -- it's not about the school.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 21:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and Alabama .  Shellwood ( talk ) 18:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect - to the University's main article per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES , WP:Redirects are cheap and WP:ATD .  The article about the walker is from an unreliable website that relies on user contributions.  The story about the new building is WP:ROUTINE and does not speak to notability at all.  Further,  I agree with the nominator that it appears to be written off a press release, making it also not independent.  A good general rule of thumb is law schools and medical schools usually qualify for an independent article; the other subschools that make up a university don't, barring some serious coverage of some of their research in books, magazines or journals.  4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 21:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Redirecting is an option per WP:ATD , or should this be kept?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 18:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: "or should this be kept?"  The Keep vote doesn't adequately address the rationale for nomination.  I'm also comfortable with a redirect.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 01:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and Merge : Sources are pretty patchy and a lot of them are to the university (and its news), local fraternities, etc..  While is a secondary source for the invention, I don't see any reason why the content in this article can't be a section in the main university article: even if there were more non-university-affiliated non-self-published secondary sources to pull content from, probably it would still fit merged.  Mrfoogles ( talk ) 18:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to University of Alabama at Birmingham#College and schools .  The separate page adds extremely little information: the rankings are already present in the main page, and the list of departments provides no useful information to the reader ( WP:NOTDIRECTORY ).  Broc ( talk ) 16:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to University of Alabama at Birmingham .  There genuinely may possibly be enough to someday write a brief and complete article on the subject of UAB's engineering school, but WP:PAGEDECIDE reminds us that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context .  This is one of those times; it would be better to structure the coverage within the article on the University, at least given the current state of sourcing.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:50, 24 June 2024 (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: merge