Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princeton University Department of Chemistry


 * 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 redirect to Princeton University. Seddon talk 21:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Princeton University Department of Chemistry

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lack of independent coverage. Filetime (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See similar articles lacking enough in-depth 3rd party coverage to warrant independent articles:


 * Princeton University Department of History
 * Princeton University Department of Psychology
 * Princeton University Department of Mathematics
 * Princeton University East Asian Studies Department
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. This department is clearly notable. It might need a few more references but they are likely to exist and be found by someone in the US, not Australia. Bduke (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The other departments should be nominated separately if this is deleted and not deleted on the coat tails of this one. Bduke (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The department has both historical and modern significance. While not every chemistry (or any) department at a given university would be noteworthy, some are depending on whom and what was done there. The article should be improved some (some added, some trimmed), but it definitely passes with WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMICA given it's history. This might also be better as a procedural keep given it was nominated as a bundle. -- Tautomers (T C) 00:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete almost all the sources are internal to Princeton University. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be built on independent coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Which independent sources show WP:SIGCOV here? I am not seeing anything. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. Tautomers said "While not every chemistry (or any) department at a given university would be noteworthy, some are depending on whom and what was done there." The problem with the page as it stands is that it doesn't let us into the secret what important chemistry was done at Princeton. No doubt there was some, but why not say? Instead we get a list of present faculty members, none of whom I had heard of (but that may be because I was trained in chemistry too long ago). After some serious work to improve the page I will probably be willing to vote keep.   Athel cb (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Another comment. I earlier commented that if important work in chemistry was done at Princeton then the article should give examples. Trying to follow this up I've been looking at Web of Science and haven't succeeded in finding anything important since 1935, when Henry Eyring introduced the idea of the activated complex. But that was a long time ago: what major advances in chemistry were made at Princeton more recently?   Athel cb (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete unsupported claims of notability (what the the keep !votes are) are not enough to override a lack of WP:GNG. If the only sources are internal to the department, then there's not much that we can do about this for an encyclopedic article. Plenty of universities have departments of chemistry, probably quite a few have been the site of major advances, but unless we have sources which cover them, that does not matter, since notability is dependant on sources and not on editor opinion of what is notable and what is not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv 🍁  00:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge with Princeton University. Not notable enough for a standalone article. (JayPlaysStuff &#124; talk to me &#124; What I've been up to) 17:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect - to Princeton University. Any interested party can add any significant facts regarding this department there, but merging should not be a prerequisite of this close. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Presumptive redirect to Princeton University, unless additional sourcing is added and a compelling case for NORG is presented. We very rarely allow articles for individual university departments, so where they are present, they need to justify it. That hasn't been done here. I support redirection over deletion because it's something someone might plausibly look up, and it'll preserve the history allowing it to be more easily restored if sourcing is created or found in the future. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect per those above. Oppose merge as WP:Undue weight and because of lack of RS.4meter4 (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: No significant coverage by reliable sources. Most are from the subject itself or self-promotional. I suggest merge some of this content with the primary articlespace of Princeton, or delete. Multi7001 (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2021 (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.