Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial College Faculty of Natural Sciences


 * 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Imperial College Faculty of Natural Sciences

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not notable enough to have its own article. Consider merge to Imperial College London. Airplaneman talk 15:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a college. It should be notable enough to have an article if other colleges do. Dew Kane (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, it is a list of faculty from a certain branch of the college. If it indeed is a college, and not an article about its faculty, I'll withdraw. Regards, Airplaneman  talk 16:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue with the article may not be whether or not the college is notable, but whether the content in the article is appropriate for Wikipedia. If this is the case, it just needs some editing the change it. Dew Kane (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, it's not a college, just a division of it. I have suggested a redirect to the college's article. Airplaneman  talk 16:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

However this goes, and I have no strong feelings one way or the other, there are also articles on Imperial's other faculties: Imperial College Faculty of Engineering and Imperial College Faculty of Medicine, all written with the same lack of style. I suggest that all three should be considered for deletion (or not) together. Emeraude (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How about merging them together, and working on improving the single article from there. Dew Kane (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the point - there's already a major article on Imperial College? Emeraude (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think redirecting all three to the main article would be the best solution, as there is no substantive content in the articles themselves. A one-sentence mention in the main article about the origins of the faculties would suffice. Airplaneman  talk 21:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you proposed it, and now you want them to redirect, I think you can close it yourself as redirect. I have seen some AfDs in which they were closed by the proposer. Dew Kane (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. There is a good deal of confusion in the discussion above. First, "Faculty" is used in the British sense of a division of a university, a collection of academic departments. It is not in the US sense of academic people, professors and the like. Second, Imperial College is now a university in its own right, after being a constituent part of the University of London. Earlier it was one of the first colleges to teach science and technology to degree level in London. Its Faculty of Science is highly notable, as it has has produced several Nobel Prize winners and many Fellows of the Royal Society. For example, its department of chemistry is one of the top departments in the UK, up there with the departments at Oxford and Cambridge. There is no question that it has been noticed and can meet our notability guidelines. It just needs improving. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. First order division of one of the world's great universities. Bduke is correct about the nomenclature. ICI is indeed a separate university. Possibly some of the individual department in it should get articles--very few single departments do, but some here may be qualified. The article of course needs to be expanded to show the notability and include sufficient references. A merge would not be appropriate--we'd just have to unmerge. Merging is suitable for articles that can never be expanded, but not for ones that so easily can be.    DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Merger is not achieved by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2010 (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.