Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Development Planning Unit (DPU)


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Development Planning Unit (DPU)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article that does not establish the notability of its subject; sources are either affiliated or pertain to some research project of this institute, without describing the institute itself in any depth. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 15:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * delete sources are mainly primary and as it stands looks like some promo for the unit. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weal keep -- This is on a university department, offering certain post-graduate degrees, probably ones that have few equaivalents elsewhere. A lot of the staff are notable enough to have articles, which points to some notability.   Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources are either primary or do not mention the unit. Individual departments seldom have independent notability and this "small and specialized" one seems no exception. The long lists of programs and staff seem like the department using Wikipedia to tell the world about itself; that is not what an encyclopedia is for. JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to The Bartlett. The standalone article is not notable, but there is some material in the history section which could usefully be added to the The Bartlett. The detailed info on each course is too detailed to be retained. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as fails GNG. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  19:09, 7 March 2014 (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.