Faculty of Archaeology: Redirect to University of Warsaw reverted.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Poland .  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I assume the part of WP:OUTCOMES you mean is this: Faculties, departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field.  Have you checked if this isn't one of those exceptions?  – Joe ( talk ) 01:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions .  – Joe ( talk ) 01:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DElete based on quick glimpse I don't think it is notable.  SYSS Mouse ( talk ) 01:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The page is under construction.  It has a higher status than an institute , and has a long history important from the perspective of archaeological research in Poland.  Many important scholars have been working there, such as Kazimierz Michałowski .  Give me some time to improve quality to prove the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES .  Also, look at the category of Category:Archaeological research institutes .  Nbarchaeo ( talk ) 09:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not policy.  There was an RfC a few years back specifically about using SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a rationale for deletion and the outcome was we couldn't.  I'd suggest that if the nominating editor can't give a better rationale, this should be closed procedurally as no valid reason for deletion.  4.37.252.50 ( talk ) 17:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough, it also fails WP:GNG .  All of the sources provided are primary - they are all written and/or published by the University of Warsaw, its staff, and its students.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ SailingInABathTub : But have you searched for other sources ?  – Joe ( talk ) 12:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - If this page is kept, it needs to be renamed to Faculty of Archaeology, University of Warsaw (or similar, but that is in line with other faculty pages).  Best not to move it until the AfD is complete though.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 13:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The faculty of archaeology replaces the institute of archaeology at the University of Warsaw.  This structural change is only 3 years old, and so secondary sources under the name "faculty of archaeology" are limited.  They do exist.  Plenty of them.  But mostly they are not significant mentions, as they are largely papers or staff bios that say that the author or whatever is a member of the faculty.  As such it may be TOOSOON to assess SIGCOV for an independently notable faculty.  But that is not the only reason to keep this page.  There is no doubt that the University of Warsaw is notable.  The University of Warsaw page is a reasonable length.  Readable prose is not much over 1,000 words, but the total word count, including all the lists etc., takes it well over 4,000 words.  So the question is whether the faculty of Archaeology is a good candidate for a spinout.  Apparently the faculty is the largest academic institute of its kind in Poland [39] .  Wikipedia also has other faculty spinout pages of various levels of quality, such as Faculty of Law of Paris (almost certainly independently notable), Faculty of Arts, Charles University (not clearly independently notable), Faculty of Science, Kasetsart University (not clearly notable and not clearly a good spinout).  I also searched previous AfDs and found a number of past AfDs of faculty articles, many of which were deleted.  E.g. [40] - redirect, [41] - no consensus, [42] - no consensus, [43] - delete, [44] - delete.  What I take from this evidence is that we do allow spinout faculty articles, but there has to be a reason why the spinout is warranted.  A stub article for an inconsequential faculty should be deleted, redirect or merged to the parent institution (and that may be the case for some existing faculty pages).  But where a parent institution's page is large, and where much can be said about the faculty, we allow the spinout.  In this case the faculty may be new but the institute isn't, and there is evidence for it being signficant.  Its output certainly seems to be significant.  Moreover this page was nominated for deletion hours after it was created, and no questions of notability etc. were raised on the article talkpage.  It is already improved from the point of nomination, and this may be a case where WP:DEMOLISH should have been considered and a talk page discussion started.  I therefore lean towards keeping this one (but with the name changed to Faculty of Archaeology, University of Warsaw ).  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 14:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Well, I've tried asking, but it's been a few days now and no valid deletion rationale is forthcoming.  Asserting that sources aren't there isn't enough; there has to be a reasonable search (which would, in this case, at least include sources in Polish).  Sirfurboy makes a good case that these should exist above.  – Joe ( talk ) 11:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Failing WP:GNG , as stated above, is a valid deletion rational.  Particularly as significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the University of Warsaw has not been presented in either the article or this discussion.  Stating WP:MUSTBESOURCES is not enough to pass WP:V .  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 13:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not how it works , I'm afraid.  You need to give us some evidence that the sources don't exist – not just that they're not in the article right now .  Otherwise, what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence .  Why should we spend time searching for sources when you, the person seeking its deletion, apparently haven't bothered?  There are 56 references listed in the article and as far as I can tell not a single sentence is uncited, so this is not a question of verifiability.  – Joe ( talk ) 13:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have searched for suitable sources in English.  I have not searched for sources in Polish, as I do not speak Polish and therefore it is not reasonable for me to do so.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The page has 56 sources cited on it.  More than twice as many as at its nomination.  Some lack independence, and many are primary, but when a source like this one [45] discusses the Warsaw school of thought, that points to significance.  Have you done any source analysis to explain why these references do not demonstrate SIGCOV?  Or would you perhaps accept that this one is a candidate for WP:HEY ?  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 13:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When I reviewed the sources in the article, this one stood out as potentially significant coverage.  I read the entire chapter.  It refers only to archaeology students at the University of Warsaw (and other Polish universities), it does not mention the faculty once.  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, it doesn't.  It does mention the institute though and seems to predate the creation of the faculty.  It also has good evidence for the significance of the faculty in Poland, because, for instance, it shows that Warsaw University produced most archaeologists in Poland in the period 1949-1980 (about 36% of the total) (page 202), and there are other indications of the university's significance.  The significance in that paper shows the significance of Archaeology at Warsaw.  My other comments above therefore pertain.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 15:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Comment There are very few sources on the Institute (1975-2020) or the Faculty (2020-), as it was formally established in 1975.  Most of the works focus on the development of archaeology in Poland, or Warsaw.  There are several archaeological institutions in Warsaw, the history of which is somewhat intertwined.  Usually such works are written after an jubilee.  A first work summarizing the history 'Dzieje archeologii na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim' [History of archaeology at the University of Warsaw] was published in 1993.  [1] For more information, I found in the history of the Department of Historical Anthropology, which later became the Department of Bioarchaeology.  [2] A few years ago, the Institute celebrated its 100th anniversary (1918-2018).  [3] Nbarchaeo ( talk ) 16:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and rename Faculty of Archaeology (University of Warsaw) : The research cited and sources in the article are enough to meet GNG.  No objection if a consensus exists for another title, I may have the convention wrong.  // Timothy :: talk 01:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article is extensively cited and the topic has significant history; certainly the kind of spin-out article we keep on individual faculties.  I think the correct rename is to Faculty of Archaeology, Warsaw .  This is the normal way to name faculty and sub-colleges as far as I am aware.  See eg Keble College, Oxford .  -- asilvering ( talk ) 02:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ Mikocki, T. (1993), KOZŁOWSKI, S.K.; KOLENDO, J. (eds.), "Historia zbiorów starożytniczych Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego", Dzieje archeologii na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim , Warszawa, pp. 27–40 ^ Sołtysiak, Arkadiusz; Jaskulski, P. (2000),  written at Warsaw , Anthropology at Warsaw University.  Antropologia na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim (PDF) , Warszawa, pp. 25–33 {{ citation }} :  CS1 maint: location missing publisher ( link ) ^ Wróblewski, W. ; Klecha, A. (2020).  "Archeologia jako fenomen kulturowy: 100 lat warszawskiej archeologii".  Wydział Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego i inne aarcheologiczne ośrodki w Warszawie (PDF) .  pp. 51–59.  ISBN 978-83-951650-5-4 .  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: keep