Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for the Humanities and Medicine


 * 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 Delete.  Hut 8.5  21:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Centre for the Humanities and Medicine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One of many sub-divisions of this university. Exactly one trivial mention news result. Admittedly 75 hits on scholar, but most/all seems to be "Dr. So and So, with The Centre..." or other passing mention.

Only claim I'm seeing in the current article is that it exists, but apparently that's sufficient not to A7. Timothy Joseph Wood 16:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 *  The significance is in that it is part of The University of Hong Kong. I recall the blistering lecture some of us received in an AfD (an AfD, mind you) long ago for !voting to delete a program at some university, I forget which. The admin rejected our arguments and closed as "Keep". SO, yes, I detagged as asserting significance as part of the University of Hong Kong. Have not searched for sourcing or done a WP:Before, so no !vote. Just explaining how it did not meet A7. Notably is not inherited, but significance is there.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * With 4,000 degree granting institution in the US alone, with about ~4% of the world population, so we could probably say 15 to 20 times that, or somewhere around 60,000-80,000 worldwide, I'm not seeing a terribly convincing argument that simply being affiliated with an university is a claim of much of anything other than existence. Nothing inherently wrong with disagreeing on the matter; just noting my disagreement. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  18:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  18:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. U Hong Kong is a very notable university, but not every program there is a notable program. Some will be, but there is no evidence that this one is.  DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the nominator's assessment. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, departments within a university are generally considered non-notable, unless they have "made significant contributions to their field". After doing some research on the topic, I (sadly) came to the conclusion that nothing suggested the Centre had achieved anything remarkable worthy of a standalone article, and certainly nothing about the centre's unique achievements was mentioned in the article. --Dps04 (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. New links have been added and this entry should be kept. This Center has developed a new way of thinking about the Humanities and Medicine – both in teaching and research – that is recognized globally. This is far more than the promotion of a ‘department’. - Casper200008 12:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome!Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. This passes the notability test and has sufficiently reliable sources, including an AHA publication, the South China Morning Post etc. User:Matthewwells55 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia!Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * delete the SPA editors have made the article worse under the policies and guidelines, not better. We now have promotional SYN along with the other problems. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please comment on the article NOT the editors, this isn't the correct forum. You says SPA editors yet the article only has one editor so please check your facts as this is misleading. Also This is not a valid argument for deletion.99.254.120.118 (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- promotional for the entity in question; belongs on the program's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - no significant coverage (passing mentions don't suffice). Short mention in another article might be OK. Neutralitytalk 17:31, 25 May 2017 (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.