Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Chittagong


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Chittagong

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The department is non-notable, even among similar departments at other universities inside Bangladesh. The main university article itself is not well developed, and at this moment, there is no need to fork the individual article for the department. There are no reliable sources indicating the notability of the department. Nor has the department made any outstanding achievements to justify its notability. Nominating for deletion per WP:N. Ragib (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to add that I had twice redirected the article to the Chittagong University page, but the creator of this page insists on having the article on the department. So, I have nominated it for AFD here. --Ragib (talk) 06:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Please compare Category:Departments of the University of Cambridge with over 40 articles. As for the university, it was founded in 1967 by a Nobel laureate and has 18000 students.  --Mr Accountable (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No one is commenting on the university (which, BTW, was not founded by Yunus ... :) ). It is the *non-notable Computer Science department* that is up for deletion here. The departments of Cambridge university are quite notable per reliable sources, that is not the case here. --Ragib (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment it is my opinion that the main page for University of Chittagong is already too long, like most university pages. So, if it comes down to a question of merging vs. not I would favor keeping this page separate.  HOWEVER, it looks to me that most of the material on this page is unsourced and non-notable.  Is there coverage of the department in news sources?  Are there any scholarly articles that specifically talk about the department (as opposed to mentioning things that came out of the department)?  I say we gut the article, deleting any non-sourcable and non-notable material.  If there is a page left, I would say to keep it...otherwise merge anything remaining into the main article.  Cazort (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, as of now, I do not see any scholarly article references to the department. The article, as of now, has lists of current students, and faculty, with a few self-published references from the department brochure/booklet. If you remove the list of students and teachers, there is about 1 sentence left (i.e. when the department was established). --Ragib (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to larger units. The standard we have in practice been using for department articles is"famous". Any lesser standard, like the GNG, will depend on accidents of sourcing and availability--if one really wants to keep the GNG one can evade it in the usual way, by a high standard for what counts as "substantial" and dismissing anything in any way connected with the university as not independent. As for Cambridge, 1/ the tag was wrongly applied--most of the articles listed are about   famous free-standing institutes and major laboratories, major buildings,  and divisions of the university. I see only 9 or 10 that are about departments or what the UK calls "faculties".  2/Of those that are, probably famous is a applicable term to use for most or all of them.  3/I think some of them probably should be merged. 4/the ones that are there tend to depend somewhat upon editor interest--I can think that looking at the university from outside, they've been done irregularly and there are a few more to do.  4/to put it bluntly, some universities are more notable than others, and the departments will tend to vary similarly. 5/this department is in no sense notable, as the overall content & lack of references show. There is not even any indication that the department has ever graduated a phd student. 6/To fill in an article with a complete list of every present and past student is outrageously inappropriate content, and tend to indicate that there isnt much there without it. That so far there have been only 90 of them indicates this all the more strongly. DGG (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - there is no evidence to indicate this department is in any way distinguished that would support a standalone article. Nor does there appear to be any need for a merge -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge . No indication that this university department is notable unto itself. No indication of any awards or other wide recognition. No indication of a history which would help make it notable (in existence for 8 years with an graduating class size of around 30) Alumni/Current Student section is non-encyclopedic.  Faculty list fails WP:NOT.  Which leaves us with the opening paragraph which would merge nicely into University of Chittagong.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It look likes a brochure and the online groups that are using in this entry are nothing but Spam. I did not find any other source that may establish its least notability.--NAHID 17:49, 27 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.