Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMU School of Accountancy


 * 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 merge to Singapore Management University. While opinion was divided over this discussion, the rough consensus seems to be that the references provided do not quite rise to the level required by our notability guidelines. If the topic is not notable, our main choices are delete, redirect, and merge. Out of these, the arguments for merging were the most persuasive, given the relationship of SMU to its school of accounting, and the precedent of how other similar topics are covered on Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 05:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

SMU School of Accountancy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable school, not notable in its own right, fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. Whilst I think deletion is the best option, I would accept a move back to draftspace, since I believe it was wrongly accepted at AFC, or a merge with Singapore Management University. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: I agree it was wrongly moved to main space, but I doubt that evidence for notability will be found, so I think moving it back to draft space would be a waste of time. --ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or move back to draft space. This should never have been accepted at AfC. Of the currently cited sources, several are mere directory listings. The Wharton school source just mentions, in a single sentence, that Wharton has a partnership with the SOA, which means Wharton isn't fully independent of them anyway. Several are published by the school itself, and one appears to be an interview with two faculty members at the school. Only the Jakarta Post article is independent and discusses the subject in some detail, and I don't know that paper's reputation or standing. Would this count as purely local coverage? It also sounds as if it at least partly relies on a press release. But even taking it a face value, it is far from sufficient. If there were several articles with this level of coverage, from different media outlets, that would be enough, and the tone could be corrected by normal editing. DES (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "I don't know that paper's reputation or standing" is not a valid deletion argument. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And I didn't make any such argument for deletion. I said I didn't know the publication but "even taking it a face value, it is far from sufficient". I would have said it was insufficient had it been the London Times, New York Times or any other publication of excellent reputation. A single source -- and this is the ONLY independent source cited so far -- is not enough. I asked for information from other editors on the publication, but absent a second source, it does not IMO establish notability. And I would have said the same had it been a school in a university in say, New Jersey or London, rather than Singapore. DES (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Fortunately there is a online resource where such ignorance may be remedied: Jakarta Post. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has sufficient reliable sources to establish notability; inluding, as noted above "[discussion] in some detail" in "Indonesia's leading English-language daily". While it should not have been refused at AfC (the reason it was declined is not one of those listed at WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions), this is not the venue to argue that matter. College and university article guidelines is relevant, and the Wharton link shows that this is a bona fide institution, not degree farm. I wonder whether this would have been refused at AfC, or be at AFD were it in England or the United States and not Singapore? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that Andy is the reviewer who moved this from draft space to mainspace. DES (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, the concerns I raised prior to weren't addressed in the slightest. Normally schools are kept because they are considered inherently notable but when it's a promotional mess nothing is gained except free advertising thus defeating the AFC process. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "deletion is not cleanup". HTH. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for clean up. I stated it is inherently an ad, which implicitly meant it needs rewritten completely which was my reason for denial. Thanks for playing but try again. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please point out where I mentioned clean up, I stated a "promotional mess nothing is gained except free advertising thus defeating the AFC process" if you wish to disagree that it needs a complete rewrite that is up to you but the community in their wisdom decided that articles that need to be completely rewritten is a valid deletion rationale. I have stated my opinion and don't have much more to add however much you try and twist my rationale, try convincing someone else please. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "concerns I raised... weren't addressed". Addressing them = cleanup. "rewritten completel". Rewriting = cleanup. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Again just because you want to twist what the template and deletion rationales actually says doesn't make it so. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Singapore Management University, where all six schools that comprise that university are already discussed. This seems to be routine practice for subsections of colleges and universities worldwide, except for a few highly notable exceptions. Let's focus here on what to do with this article now in main space rather than how it got there. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge & Redirect - What says anything has to go through articles for creation? Besides, this is NOT the forum for that discussion. When it comes down to it, this is a school within Singapore Management University and as such should be merged and redirected into that article unless indepdnently notable. Unfortunately, I do not see any references that would make it indepdnently notable.CNMall41 (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No article has to go through AfC. However this one was started there, and the editor who used that process was implicitly depending on the reviewers not to approve an article that is unlikely to pass an AfD. In this case a reviewer badly let the editor down or we wouldn't be here. I wouldn't object to a merge and redir, but there is very little independently sourced content here to merge. DES (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: According to this. Aero   Slicer  15:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Aero Slicer I'd be more inclined to consider that if there wasn't this blurb at the bottom "Asian Scientist Magazine is a media partner of the Singapore Management University Office of Research." It is also authored by the university. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears in google news search. And google can't be a partner. If it is then this B-school is reliable.  Aero   Slicer  15:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , we require truly independent sources to establish notability, and a publication run by the university itself is definitely not independent. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  16:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * merge Major business schools that are part of a major university are generally notable, just as are medical or law schools. This is considerably less than that sort of business school: the Singapore Management University  is itself a business school, and this is one of its six subdivisions. Even for famous universities, subdivisions at that level  are not generally notable, and this is no exception.   DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have tried to list more independent sources from publications like the Straits Times and Jakarta Post which are not linked to the SMU School of Accountancy. I've also tried to write the article in a neutral tone and removed some peacock terms. The Singapore Management University's school of Business and Social Sciences have separate articles and I feel that the School of Accountancy has a similar level of notability as these schools. Note: I'm the main editor of this article. RachR310 (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I was able to find another reference that specifically covers the awarding of two faculty members from the School of Accountancy. Bfpage &#124;leave a message 04:44, 4 September 2015 (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.